1 

i 


i 
1 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 

i 


THE  LIBRARIES 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


I 

i 


E^nniffuflrpjOffuillTunfruiin^ 


■"or. COL]. 
VINDICATION     u>j>VRY 

«r   THE  /  ,  /  I  . 

PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


IN  A  SEKIES  OF  BETTERS  ADDRESSED  TO 

THE  REV.  SAMUEL  MILJ.ER,  D.  D.  ^  /  Q 

IK  heplt  to 


LATE  WKHINGS  ON  THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY,  AND  TO  THE  CHARGES 
CONTAINED  IN  HIS  LIFE  OF  THE  REV.  DR.  RCDGERS- 


PBELIMINAEY  REMARKS. 


BY  THOMAS  Y.  HOW,  D.  D. 

Assistant  Rector  of  Trinity  Churehj  New- York. 


J^EW-TORK 

Published  by  Eastburn,  Kirk,  &  Co.  T.  &  J.  S\vords, 
and  P.  A.  Mesier. 
T.  &  J.  Swords,  rrinters,  No.  ICO  Pearl-strec?, 

1810. 


i^  311  i 


PREIMMINARY  REMARKS 


X  HE  author  of  the  present  work  is  not  unaware 
of  the  great  dislike  which  manj  persons  entertain 
of  religious  controversy.  ¥/hatever  may  be  the  me- 
rits of  a  book,  the  single  circumstance  of  coming 
forward  in  a  controversial  shape,  is  almost  enough 
to  discredit  it.  Feeling,  very  deeply,  the  imper- 
fections of  this  performance,  he  cannot  but  be 
extremely  solicitous  to  guard  it  from  that  odium 
which  the  term  controversy  carries  with  it;  and 
would,  therefore,  entreat  an  indulgent  attention 
to  a  few  brief  remarks. 

It  is  the  object  of  controversy  to  defend  the 
truth,  and  to  repel  error.  Of  course  it  implies 
debate,  and  opposition.  These,  no  doubt,  may 
be  carried  so  far  as  to  degenerate  into  furious  con- 
tention, to  the  great  injury  of  Christian  charity^ 
Like  every  thing  else,  controversy  is  often  per- 
verted from  its  legitimate  purpose ;  for  it  is  too 
much  the  practice  of  the  contrgvertist  to  seek 

01  94B 


iy  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

victory  rather  than  truth.  And  even  when  the 
object  which  the  controvcrtist  proposes  to  him- 
self is  a  lawful  one,  he,  very  frequently,  in  guard- 
ing against  error,  forgets  the  still  more  sacred  ob- 
ligation of  promoting  brotherly  love.  But  these 
are  the  abuses  of  controversy ;  not  its  necessary 
concomitants.  Of  the  argument  against  contro- 
versy, however,  derived  from  its  abuse,  I  do  not 
enter  into  a  consideration  here;  since  it  will  natu- 
rally present  itself  to  our  attention  in  a  subsequent 
Jpart  of  these  remarks. 

1.  Let  us  appeal  to  Scripture  on  this  subject. 
Does  it  forbid  us   to  discuss,  to  controvert,  to 
contend  ?    Very  far  from  it.     We  are  to  hold  fast 
the  form  of  sound  words ;  we  are  to  try  the  spiriti^^ 
whether  they  are  of  God;  we  are  to  contend  ear- 
nestly for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.   Il 
any  man  come  to  us,  and  bring  not  the  true  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  we  are  not  to  receive  him  into  our 
house,  nor  to  wish  him  God  speed ;  such  as  wish 
him  God  speed  being  partakers  of  his  evil  deeds. 
What  plain  and  unequivocal  language  is  this! 
Earnest  contention  surely  amounts  to  controversy ; 
if  so,  controversy  is  enjoined  upon  us  by  the  in- 
spired Writers,  in  the  most  positive  terms.     We 
icannot  suppose  that  such  language  was  used  acci- 
dentally.    No,  surely,  it  was  well  weighed  ;  for  it 
is  evidently  delivered  as  a  permanent  rule  of 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  V 

conduct  for  the  disciples  of  Christ.     Indeed  it  is 
the  divinely  appointed  method  of  propagating  re- 
ligious truth.   Force  is  not  to  be  employed.    Chris- 
tianity is  to  win  her  way  by  the  power  of  argu- 
ment, not   of  the   sword.     Did   not   our  blessed 
Lord  himself  irresistibly  address  the  understand- 
ings of  his  hearers  ?   It  is  true,  he  appealed  chiefly 
to  the  evidence   of  miracles,  in  proof  of  his  di- 
vine mission ;  but  still  he  frequently  addressed  the 
Jews  in  the  way  of  argument;  endeavouring  to 
convince  them  of  his   real   character,  by  an  ex- 
amination of  their  own  sacred  books.    Look  again 
at  the  Apostolical  epistles !     Are  they  not  highly 
argumentative  ?     What  a  profound  logic  does  St. 
Paul  employ  in  confuting  the  Jewish  errors!    How 
anxiously  does  St.  John  apply  himself  to  the  de- 
nial of  those  false  doctrines,  which,  even  in  that 
primitive  age,  began  to  be  propagated  with  so 
much  zeal !    Here  is  an  example  for  the  imitation 
of  Christians  through  all  succeeding  time.     The. 
Apostles  not  only  exhibhed  the  evidence  of  mira- 
cle in  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity, 
but  laboured  to  guard  it  from  corruption  by  pro- 
found and  accurate  discussion.     They  at  once  de- 
fended the  truth  by  argument,  and  adorned  it  by 
example.      Was    controversy   necessary,    in   the 
Apostolic  age  ;  and  is  it  unnecessary  now  ?    The 
evidence  of  miracle  having  ceased,  it  is  only  by 


VI  TRELIMINAUY    REMARKi^, 

the  evidence  of  reasoning  that  the  faith  can  be  pre- 
served. AVhal,  indeed,  is  the  Christian  ministry 
hut  a  controversial  establishment  ?  And  but  for 
the  impregnable  bulwark  of  argument  and  learn- 
ing, erected  bv  the  labours  of  the  clerical  order, 
the  Christian  Church  must  long  since  have  sunk 
beneath  the  formidable  assaults  ^vhich  the  de- 
praved passions  of  the  human  heart  have  conti- 
nued to  direct  against  her  m  every  age.  The  mi- 
nistry was  founded  emphatically  for  the  support  of 
the  truth.  They  are  to  defend  it  at  once  from 
open  and  from  secret  attack;  to  preserve  it  alike 
from  being  violently  overwhelmed,  or  treacher- 
ously undermined.  And,  accordingly,  by  profound 
research  and  unanswerable  argument,  they  have 
not  only  com|)lctely  established  the  divinity  of 
Scripture,  but  have  so  successfully  explained  its 
language,  as  to  guard  it,  equally,  from  the  mis- 
apprehension of  the  well  meaning  Christian,  and 
irom  the  sneer  of  the  licentious  free  thinker. 

But  is  not  this  robbing  God  of  the  glory  r 
By  no  means.  Every  good  gift  comelh  down 
from  the  Father  of  lights;  but  he  chooses  his  own 
method,  and  prescribes  his  own  condition,  of  dis- 
pensing his  blessings.  God,  indeed,  has  preserved 
the  Christian  faith;  but  he  has  preserved  it  through 
the  instrumentality  of  a  learned  and  pious  mi- 
nistry.    This   faith,  in  order  that  its  excellence 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  Vil 

aiul  beauly  may  be  perceived  and  felt,  must  be 
the  subject  of  constant  discussion. 

2.  There  is  a  close  analogy  between  the  con- 
dition on  wliich  we  hold  spiritual  and  temporal 
blessings.  What  is  there  that  we  can  either  ac- 
quire or  preserve  without  care  and  labour?  Man 
is  to  earn  his  bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow. 
Property,  health,  character,  would  all  leave  us  if 
we  did  not  make  their  preservation  an  object  of 
constant  and  solicitous  attention. 

How  have  we  arrived  at  scientific  truth,  and  all 
the  blessings  which  it  carries  in  its  train?  By 
anxious  thought,  by  persevering  and  painful  la- 
bour. Without  that  exercise  of  the  mental  facul- 
ties which  results  from  the  collision  of  controversy, 
society  must  have  remained  for  ever  in  a  state  of 
comparative  barbarism.  Truth  has  gradually  won 
her  way  in  the  conflict  of  jarring  opinions.  Even 
in  those  branches  of  science  in  which  philosophers, 
disputing  for  ages,  have  appeared  to  be  employed 
only  in  exchanging  one  system  of  error  for  an- 
other*, the  contest,  nevertheless,  has  been  of  in-* 
calculable  advantage ;  for,  beside  keeping  the  cu- 
riosity of  the  mind  awake,  and  preserving  the  vi- 
gour of  its  faculties,  it  has,  at  length,  after  carry- 
ing men  through  the  entire  circle  of  error,  led 
them  to  the  true  theory  of  nature.  We  have  been 
accustomed  to  look  up  with  reverence  to  Lord 


Viii  PRELIMINAUY    REMARKS. 

Bacon  as  the  father  of  experimental  philosophy. 
And,  undoubtedly,   no  other  individual  has  ever 
conferred  such  signal  benefits  upon  science.     But 
the  rules  which  Lord  Bacon  laid  down  for  the  dis- 
covery of  physical  truth,  were  not  less  the  natural 
result  of  the  state  of  the  science  at  the  period  in 
which  he  lived,  than  of  his  own  transcendant  ge- 
nius.    There  is  hardly  a  rule  prescribed  by  him, 
of  which  some  trace  may   not  be  discovered  in 
the  writings  of  his  predecessors.     The  merit  of 
Bacon  lay  in  embodying  into  a  regular  system, 
those  hints  and  rules  which  before  may  be  said  to 
have  existed,  but  in  an  insulated,  and  therefore, 
comparatively,   an  unproductive   form.     If  Lord 
Bacun  had  never  lived,   thu  jusl  method  of  philo- 
sophic investigation,   and  the  true  theory  of  na- 
ture, would,  still,  have  been  discovered.     Physi- 
cal science  had  arrived  at  that  point  which,  in 
the  regular  order  of  things,  was  to  be  succeeded 
by  the  true  mode  of  inquiry.      Hypothesis  had 
been  practised  until  its  futility  as  an  organ  of  dis- 
covery was  perfectly  apparent;  and  it  was,  parti- 
cularly, by  observing  the  absolute  nothingness  of 
the  speculations  conducted  upon  this  plan,  after 
a  thorough  trial  of  its  merits  had  been  made,  that 
Lord  Bacon  was  led  to  direct  his  attention  to  some 
new    mode   of  investigation,  and  to   recommend 
experiment  and  observation  a§  the  only  way  to 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  iX 

arrive  at  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  laws  of 
nature.  The  controversies,  then,  carried  on  in 
the  schools,  apparently  altogether  worthless,  were 
productive  of  the  most  substantial  advantages. 
They  were  one  stage  in  the  progress  of  the  human 
mind;-— a  stage  through  which  it  w^as  necessary 
to  pass  to  arrive  at  the  splendour  of  the  present 
day.  We  are  tempted  to  smile  when  we  observe 
the  ardour  with  which  the  studies  of  alchemy  and 
astrology  were  pursued.  But  these  studies  kept 
the  human  mind  employed,  gave  rise  to  a  great 
multitude  of  experiments  and  observations,  and, 
finally,  led  to  the  successful  cultivation  of  two  of 
the  noblest  branches  of  physical  science. 

The  same  train  of  remark  is  applicable  to  the 
perverse  disputations  of  the  schoolmen,  in  the 
departments  of  logic  and  metaphysics.  Ridicu- 
lous and  unprofitable  as  these  controversies  seem 
to  be,  they,  nevertheless,  display  great  mental 
vigour;  and  they  gradually  led  to  the  inductive 
method  of  prosecuting  the  science  of  mind,  which 
now  prevails,  and  which  has  begun  to  introduce 
into  this  department,  a  clearness  that  promises  to 
rival  the  certainty  bestoued  by  the  labours  of 
Bacon  and  Newton  upon  natural  philosophy. 

We  may  take  a  similar  view  of  the  theological 
disputes  which  were  carried  on  in  the  dark  ages. 
They  not  only  served  to  keep  the  religious  mind 

b 


X  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

in  action,  but  gradually  prepared  the  way  lor  a 
better  system. 

3.  If  we  look  into  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church,  we  shall  find  that  the  faith  has  been 
preserved  from  corruption,  or  has  been  restored 
to  purity,  by  the  influence  of  controversy.  A 
copious  detail  of  facts  might  be  given  in  proof 
of  this  assertion;  but  a  very  general  view  will  be 
suflicient  for  our  purpose.  We  have  seen  that 
pernicious  heresies  began  to  infest  the  Church  in 
the  earliest  ages.  What  if  the  truth  had  been  left, 
according  to  the  fashionable  prejudice  of  the  pre- 
sent day,  to  take  care  of  itself?  In  other  words, 
what  if  no  opposition  had  been  made  to  error; 
if  no  controversy  had  been  entered  into  with 
its  authors?  Would  the  faith  have  been  pre- 
served in  its  purity  ?  No,  not  even  in  that  mira- 
culous age.  The  Apostles  acted  a  very  different 
part;  esteeming  it  a  duty  to  attack  error  as  often 
as  it  presented  itself  to  their  view.  Hence  the 
cogent  reasonings  of  St.  Paul;  hence  the  explicit 
declarations  of  St.  John,  which  are  now  appealed 
to  as  decisive  on  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel.  AVhen  the  Arian  heresy  became  so  power- 
ful in  the  Church,  would  it  have  done,  think  you, 
for  the  orthodox  to  slumber  on  their  posts  ?  Was 
it  not  absolutely  necessary  that  they  should  rouse 
ihcmseives  to  the  most  vigorous   exertion;   that 


PRELIMINATtY    REMARKS.  Xl 

they  should  call  into  exercise  all  the  powers  and 
all  the  affections  of  their  nature?  Who  can  look 
upon  St.  Athanasius,  witliout  recognizing  in  him 
the  great  and  glorious  champion  of  the  cross? 
But,  descending  to  a  comparatively  modern  pe- 
riod, how  was  the  dreadful  yoke  of  popery  bro- 
ken, and  tlie  Church  purified  from  those  foul  cor- 
ruptions which  threatened  entirely  to  obscure  the 
lustre  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  terminate  in  an  uni- 
versal apostacy  from  the  faith  r  If  there  had  been 
no  reformation  from  popery,  Christianity  must 
have  been  lost ;  and  the  reformation  from  popery 
was  the  result  of  that  enlargement  and  invigora- 
tion  of  the  human  mind,  produced  by  constant 
debate  and  inquiry.  It  was  by  the  sword  of  con- 
troversy that  the  Romish  system  of  fraud  and  folly 
was  destroyed.  Calculated  for  an  age  of  darkness, 
its  only  hope  of  security  rested  on  the  inaction  of 
the  human  faculties.  It  is  consistent  enoudi  in 
the  bigoted  Papist  to  decry  controversy,  and  to 
urge  implicit  submission  to  the  dictates  of  autho- 
rity ;  but  this  is  a  sort  of  language  not  at  all  be- 
coming in  a  Protestant,  the  distinguishing  spirit 
of  whose  religion  it  is  to  inquire  accurately  and 
deeply  into  the  doctrines  which  are  proposed  to 
our  faith,  and  to  bring  every  thing  to  the  test  of  a 
most  strict  comparison  with  the  infallible  standard 
of  Scripture. 


Sll  rRELIMINAKY    REMARKb. 

Descending  from  the  ?era  of  the  Reformation 
to  tlie  present  clay,  who  can  doubt  that  religious 
light  has  been  continually  increasing;  that  the 
Sacred  writings  are  getting  to  be  better  and  better 
miderstood;  that  the  system  of  doctrine  which 
promises  to  be  most  prevalent  is  more  and  more 
purified  from  conflicting  errors?  Pelagianism  is 
retiring  on  one  hand;  Calvinism  on  the  other. 
Man  is  utterly  incapable,  by  his  own  unassisted 
erTorts,  of  working  out  his  salvation.  He  stands 
in  absolute  need  of  the  enhghtening  and  sanc- 
tifying influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  At  the  same 
time,  he  has  a  real  agency  in  the  work  of  his 
salvation;  and  is  not,  as  the  Calvinists  will  have 
it,  a  mere  passive  recipient  of  irresistible  grace. 
The  great  doctrine  of  redemption  is  equally  vin- 
dicated from  the  attacks  of  the  Socinian,  who 
denies  the  necessity  of  redemption  on  one  hand; 
and  from  those  of  the  Calvinist,  who  limits 
the  eflicacy  of  redemption  to  a  few  arbitrarily 
elected  favourites,  on  the  other.  The  absurdities 
of  Calvinism,  like  those  of  Popery,  if  left  unop- 
posed, would  have  produced  universal  infidelity. 
And  to  wiiat  are  we  to  ascribe  the  decline  of 
this  pernicious  doctrine,  which  may  be  consi- 
dered as  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  of  the 
religious  signs  of  the  present  times?  It  is  to  be 
ascribed,   unquestionably,   to  the  prevalence  of 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKb.  XIll 

enlightened  discussion.  The  controversy  relative 
lo  the  points  of  Calvinistic  divinity,  has  led  to  a 
most  thorough  investigation  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings; and  this  investigation  has  terminated  in  the 
estabhshment  of  the  blessed  doctrine  of  the  re- 
demption of  fallen  man  through  the  blood  of  Christ, 
on  foundations  not  to  be  shaken  by  the  eftbrts  of 
the  Pelagians  and  Socinians  on  the  one  hand,  or 
of  the  Calvinists  and  Antinomians*  on  the  other. 
Look  at  the  history  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  you  will  constantly  see   a  host  of  scholars 


*  It  would  be  very  unjust  not  to  admit  that  many,  who  hold  the 
Calvinistic  doctrines,  are  strenuous  in  urging-  the  indispensable  neces- 
sity  of  obedience  to  the  divine  law — of  holiness  of  heart  and  life — to 
our  salvation.  Such  persons  are  equally  zealous  with  their  opponents 
in  reprobating  the  shocking  tenets  of  Antinomianism ;  and  it  must  be 
a  subject  of  sincere  regret  to  the  friends  of  vital  piety,  that  persons 
who  agree,  at  once,  in  ascribing  the  entire  merit  of  redemption  to 
Jesus  Christ,  and  in  insisting  upon  conformity  to  the  whole  law  of 
God  as  necessary,  on  the  part  of  man,  should  wrangle  with  one  an- 
other on  the  subject  of  supposed  secret  decrees;  instead  of  uniting 
their  force  in  opposing  the  common  enemy.  At  the  same  time,  can- 
dour oblig  s  me  to  add,  that  the  genuine  tenets  of  Calvinism  appear  to 
me  to  lead,  directly  and  irresistibly,  to  the  most  immoral  and  blas- 
phemous consequences.  So  the  great  Melancthon  viewed  the  matter; 
for  he  did  not  hesitate  to  give  to  the  speculations  of  Calvin,  tiie  title 
of  "  stoical  necessity,"  and  to  brand  their  author  as  the  Zeno  of  his  age. 
Still  the  principles  in  question  are  viewed  in  a  different  point  of  light 
by  those  who  hold  them ;  and  while  such  persons  unite  in  urging  a 
strict  conformity  to  the  whole  law  of  God  as  necessary  to  salvation,  if 
is,  let  it  be  repeated,  a  subject  of  sincere  regret  that  they  should  bf- 
arranged  in  opposition  to  their  brethren  by  the  dark  tenets  of  a  meta- 
physical  system.  When  these  tenets  are  brought  forward,  however,  it 
is  absolutely  necessary  that  they  should  be  opposed.  Calvinism  dc 
stroys  the  beauty  and  loveliness  of  the  Christian  system,  and  infallibly 
prepare*  the  way  for  tk«  introduction  of  infidelity. 


%IV  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

throwing  llic  shield  of  learning  and  piety  before 
the  true  Aiilh ;  at  one  time  defending  it  against 
the  assaults  of  papal  superstition,  at  another 
^igainst  those  errors  both  of  doctrine  and  discipline 
into  vvhicli  many  of  the  Reformers  were  led  by  a 
well  meaning  but  intemperate  zeal.  And  not 
content  with  preserving  the  purity  of  the  faith  from 
the  contagion  of  superstition  on  one  hand,  and 
of  fanaticism  on  the  other,  you  behold  the  unri- 
valled scholars  in  question  repelling,  at  all  times, 
wdth  equal  sagacity  and  vigour,  the  secret  and 
the  public  assaults  of  the  boasted  champions  of 
infidelity. 

Yes,  if  the  present  fashionable  prejudice,  on 
the  subject  of  controversy,  had  governed  the  con- 
duct of  Christian  scholars,  we  might  have  con- 
tinued to  grope  in  the  darkness  of  papal  error 
— the  faith  would  never  have  been  recovered 
from  the  mass  of  corruption  with  which  Rome 
had  encumbered  it;  or  if  recovered,  it  must,  after 
being  first  defaced  by  fanatical  extravagance, 
have  finally  perished  under  the  attacks  of  a  licen- 
tious scepticism. 

4.  The  experience  of  this  country  furnishes  abun- 
dant evidence  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  religious 
discussion.  Suppose,  for  a  moment,  that,  from 
the  original  settlement  of  the  country,  no  contro- 
versy had  taken  place  relative  to  the  principles 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XV 

which  discriminate  the  Episcopal  Church  from 
other  religious  denominations.  Beyond  all  ques- 
tion, she  would  have  perished.  Her  distinctive 
principles  being  forgotten,  and  her  spirit  of  corps 
extinguished,  she  would  have  been  gradually  ab- 
sorbed by  other  societies  of  Christians.  Very 
many  Episcopal  congregations  have  actually  dis- 
appeared in  this  way,  and  all  would  have  disap- 
peared but  for  that  enlightened  zeal  for  her  insti- 
tutions which  controversy  has  enkindled.  Mind 
gravitates  towards  mind,  not  less  than  matter  to- 
wards matter.  The  planets  would  immediately 
rush  to  the  sun  if  there  were  no  principle  to  coun- 
teract the  force  of  attraction.  And  the  Church  would 
infallibly  have  merged  in  the  larger  religious  so- 
cieties around  her,  if  she  had  pursued  the  policy, 
30  often  recommended  to  her,  of  seeking  peace 
by  forgetting  every  circumstance  of  distinction 
between  them  and  her.  No  body  of  men  will 
grow  without  contending  for  their  principles;  nor 
will  any  attachment  be  preserved  for  principles 
which  it  is  made  an  object  to  keep  systematically 
out  of  sight.  Under  such  circumstances  the  laity 
would  soon  become  entirely  ignorant  of  the  peci'e- 
liar  doctrines  of  the  Church;  the  clergy  would. 
in  time,  become  ignorant  of  them  also;— then 
would  follow  a  complete  interchange  of  religious 
offices;  and  this  could  not  fnil  ultimately  to  draw 


XVI  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

after  it  an  incorporation  of  the  respective  bodieb. 
Of  course,  the  entire  mass  would  assume  the 
shape  and  features  of  the  larger  division;  especi- 
ally if  that  division  should  happen  to  be  deeply 
impregnated  with  its  own  separate  and  peculiar 
spirit. 

Thus  all  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  our 
Church;  nay,  her  existence  itself,  would  be  sacri- 
ficed to  a  spurious  liberality. 

The  progress  and  present  state  of  our  Church 
in  Connecticut,  will  furnish  a  complete  exempli- 
lication  of  the  truth  of  these  remarks.  A  century 
ago  she  had  scarcely  an  existence  in  that  State; 
consisting  principally  of  about  seventy  or  eighty 
families,  in  the  towns  of  Stratford,  Fairfield,  Nor- 
walk,  Newtown,  Repton,  and  West-Haven.*  While 
the  Church  was  in  this  low  and  feeble  condition, 
an  event  occurred  which  has  been  productive  of 
most  important  consequences.  Some  Congrega- 
tional ministers,  of  distinguished  talents  and  piety, 
being  convinced,  upon  mature  investigation,  of 
the  invalidity  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  resigned 
their  places,  went  to  England  for  holy  orders, 
and  became  most  useful  and  zealous  clergymen 
of  the  Episcopal  Church.  In  this  number  were 
Dr.  Timothy  Cutler,    and  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson, 

'  r\MivAV^\  T/^-  of  Dr.  Johnson,  p.  26,  39 


rRELIMINATlY    REMARKS*  XVli 

two  men  greatly  celebrated  in  their  day,  and  whose 
lianies  will  ever  be  conspicuous  in  the  history  of 
the  early  literature  of  this  country.  An  event  of 
this  kind  could  not  fail  to  excite  much  attention ; 
it  gave  rise  to  a  controversy  relative  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Christian  Ministry,  in  which  the  sub- 
ject was  ably  discussed*  The  Church  grew;  her 
members  became  better  acquainted  with  her  dis- 
tinctive principles,  and  felt  a  greater  attachment 
to  them.  The  controversy  in  question  has  conti- 
nued, at  intervals,  from  the  time  of  Dr.  Johnson, 
to  the  present  day.  The  result  is,  that  the  subject 
of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  is 
thoroughly  understood  by  the  great  body  of  the 
clergy  of  that  diocess,  as  well  as  by  many  en- 
lightened laymen ;  the  Church  there,  is  animated 
by  a  high  degree  of  zeal  for  her  distinctive  prin- 
ciples; and  bids  fair,  in  the  opinion  of  compe- 
tent judges,  to  become,  at  no  very  distant  period^ 
the  predominant  religious  society. 

The  Church  of  Connecticut  has  grown  up  in  the 
midst  of  perpetual  discussion.  She  is,  literally, 
the  child  of  controversy. 

Trace,  now,  for  a  moment,  the  progress  of  this 
business.  The  Church  was  extremely  low  in 
Connecticut ; — she  scarcely  supported  a  feebje 
and  precarious  existence.  How  was  she  revived 
and  strengthened  ?    By  the  disinterested  conduct 

c 


XViil  PRELIMINAKY    REMARKS. 

of  those  excellent  men  who  sacriticed,  with  a 
truly  Apostolic  spirit,  every  prospect  of  temporal 
comfort  and  prosperity,  to  the  discharge  of  their 
Christian  duty.  How  were  these  men  led  to  in- 
quire into  the  nature  of  the  Christian  Church  r 
How  did  they  attain  to  those  correct  views  of  the 
subject  under  the  influence  of  which  they  acted, 
in  changing  their  religious  profession?  The  li- 
brary of  the  College  at  New-Haven  contained 
the  works  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
divines  of  the  Church  of  England.  By  the  dili- 
gent study  of  these,  under  the  divine  blessing, 
their  prejudices  yielded  to  the  force  of  truth.  They 
examined  the  subject  most  thoroughly;  reading 
the  principal  authors  on  each  side,  and  comparing 
them  minutely  with  one  another.  Thus  it  is  that 
a  faithful  discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined  upon  us 
in  Scripture,  of  contending  zealously  for  the  truth, 
is  followed  by  beneficial  consequences  from  age 
to  acce.  If  the  illustrious  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England  had  yielded  to  the  influence  of  thai 
spurious  liberality  which  is  now  so  much  con- 
tended for,  the  interesting  event,  just  mentioned, 
would  never  have  occurred  ;  and,  probably,  it  is 
not  going  too  far  to  say,  that  if  the  change  of  Dr. 
Johnson,  Dr.  Cutler,  and  their  friends,  with  the 
spirit  of  inquiry  which  it  excited,  had  not  taken 
place,  the  Episcopal  Church  would,  at  this  day. 


PRELIMINARY   REMARKS.  \IX 

have  been  extinct  in  Connecticut.  What  a  con- 
trast to  this  do  we  now  behold! — A  powerful  and 
increasing  Cluuch,  animated  by  the  spirit  of  her 
institutions  and  services;  presenting  religion  in  a 
shape  which  will  endure  the  test  of  severe  inves- 
tigation, and  thus  affording  an  asylum  to  those 
whom  the  absurdity  of  Calvinism  would  otherwise 
lead,  first  to  Socinianism,  and  then  to  open  infidel- 
ity. It  is  not  less  unreasonable  to  expect  religious, 
than  natural  fruit,  where  you  cast  no  seed  into  the 
earth.  Use  the  means  which  God  has  pointed 
out;  contend  for  the  truth  in  the  spirit,  at  once,  of 
meekness,  and  of  zeal;  and,  rely  upon  it,  God  will, 
sooner  or  later,  grant  the  increase. 

But  it  is  not  merely  from  the  experience  of  the 
Church  in  the  diocess  of  Connecticut  that  we 
derive  our  opinion  as  to  the  beneficial  effects 
of  free  and  manly  discussion^  Every  where  we 
have  found  our  Church  to  languish,  when  the 
policy  has  been  pursued  of  keeping  her  distinctive 
principles  out  of  sight; — every  where  she  has  grown 
and  flourished  when  she  has  had  zeal  and  energy 
enough  to  proclaim  and  defend  those  principles. 
Do  they,  who  so  severely  condemn  religious  con- 
troversy, know  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  cler- 
gymen of  our  Church,  now  settled  in  the  diocess  of 
New- York,  are  converts  from  other  denominations : 
This  important  fact  is  in  the  place  of  a  volume  oi 


XX  PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 

argument,  to  prove  that  the  Church  can  have  no- 
thing to  fear,  but  every  thing  to  hope,  from  enlight- 
ened and  zealous  inquiry.  The  attention  of  the 
persons  alluded  to,  was  drawn,  at  different  times, 
to  the  subject  of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
Church,  by  the  public  controversies  carried  on 
in  this  country,  relative  to  the  divine  institution 
of  Episcopacy.  Perceiving  it  to  be  their  indis- 
pensable duty  to  give  the  subject  a  full  and  dis- 
passionate examination,  they  entered  sincerely 
upon  tlie  task.  The  result,  in  very  numerous 
cases,  has  been  a  perfect  conviction  of  the  inva- 
lidity of  Presbyterial  ordination,  and  a  consequent 
application  for  holy  orders  in  the  Episcopal  Church. 
Deprive  our  Church  in  this  diocess  of  the  clergy- 
men who  have  joined  her  from  other  denomina- 
tions, and  she  would  be  left,  indeed,  in  a  very 
desolate  condition.  This  places  the  utility  of  re- 
ligious controversy  in  so  palpable  a  shape  before 
us,  as  scarcely  to  aiTord  room  for  a  difference  of 
opinion.  But,  indeed,  the  case  is  not  less  clear 
in  point  of  principle.  For,  in  one  word,  did  any 
body  of  men  ever  grow,  who  were  too  sluggish, 
or  too  cautious  to  contend  for  their  distinctive 
principles  ?  The  thing  is  impossible — so  plainly 
so,  that  a  state  of  indifference  like  this,  in  any 
society,  is  universally  regarded  as  an  infallible 
symptom  of  approaching  dissolution. 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XXl 

5.  The  only  consistent  way  of  answering  all  this, 
is  to  take  the  ground,  at  once,  that  all  opinions 
are  equally  good ;  at  least  that  the  distinctive 
principles  and  institutions  of  our  Church  are  not 
worth  contending  for.  Doctrines  that  are  kept 
systematically  out  of  sight  can  never  be  valued, 
and  must  soon  be  lost.  It  would  seem  to  be  im- 
possible, therefore,  that  any  person  who  cordially 
embraces  the  doctrines  of  our  Church,  should 
be  opposed  to  the  public  discussion  of  them.  At 
all  events,  as  the  Apostle  expressly  commands  us. 
to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith,  to  hold  fast  the 
form  of  sound  words,  and  to  declare  the  whole 
counsel  of  God,  they  who  so  decidedly  condemn 
all  defence  of  the  principles  which  discriminate 
our  Church  from  other  Christian  societies,  must 
be  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of  saying  either  that 
the  peculiar  principles  of  our  Church  are  unscrip- 
tural,  or  that  the  injunction  of  the  Apostle  is  not 
to  be  obeyed,* 


*  It  is  our  duty  to  declare  tlie  whole  counsel  of  God — The  distinc- 
tive principles  and  institutions  of  our  Church  are  part  of  this  counsel 
— Therefore  the  distinctive  principles  and  institutions  of  our  Church 
are  to  be  declared.  There  is,  obviously,  no  way  of  escaping  this  con- 
clusion but  by  denying  either  the  major  or  minor  proposition.  To 
deny  the  latter,  is  to  say,  that  the  distinctive  principles  and  institutions 
of  our  Church  are  unscriptural ;  to  deny  the  former,  is  to  say,  that  the 
Apostolic  command  need  not  be  observed. 

It  will  be  objected,  perhaps,  that  the  Apostle  directs  us  to  feed  with 
milk  such  as  will  not  bear  strong  meat;  and,  generally,  to  administer 
to  the  people  their  spiritual  food  in  r/wf  season.    Undoubtedly,  a  cer- 


xxil  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

It  seems,  then,  that  all  the  peculiar  principles 
of  our  Church  are  to  be  kept  entirely  out  of  sight* 
I  say  all  the  peculiar  principles;  for  the  objection 
is  not  to  the  discussion  of  this  or  that  principle, 
but  to  controversy  simply.  Have  the  opposers  of 
controversy  reflected  on  the  great  variety  of  reli- 
gious subjects  from  which  the  advocate  of  the 
Church  will  be  excluded  by  the  objection  in  ques- 
tion? Have  they  considered  that  it  renders  al- 
most the  whole  of  Christianity  forbidden  ground? 

We  must  not  introduce,  for  example,  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism,  nor  touch  the  question  re- 
lative to  the  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance. 
This  would  involve  a  controversy  with  our  Baptist 
brethren.  If  we  urge  the  duty  of  receiving  the 
sacraments,  or  point  out  the  necessity  of  an  ex- 
ternal commission  to  a  valid  Gospel  Ministry,  we 

t.ain  latitude  is  allowed  on  tliis  subject.  It  may  be  necessary  gradually 
to  prepare  the  mind  for  the  reception  of  truths  to  which  a  disinclina- 
tion, at  any  particular  period,  may  exist.  But  where  the  stewards  of 
f;hrist  thus  distribute  weak  instead  of  strong  food,  it  is  always  to  be 
taken  for  granted  that  they  will  labour  to  prepare  the  people  for  those 
scriptural  truths,  to  which  they  may  be,  at  the  moment,  opposed;  and 
that  the  purpose  for  which  they  give  milk  is,  emphatically,  to  fit  th« 
feeble  Christian,  to  whom  they  give  it,  for  the  strong  meat  which  ho 
must  ultimately  receive.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christ's  ministers  to  make 
known  his  wliole  will;  gradually,  to  be  sure,  if  necessary;  but  to 
make  it  known.  They  have  no  dispensing  power  here.  1  he  injunction 
is  express  and  unqualified.  Now,  the  doctrine,  relative  to  controversy, 
which  I  am  opposing,  would  exclude  the  distinctive  principles  of  our 
Church  from  discussion  at  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances. 
The  objection  is  not,  simply,  to  tlie  time  of  discussion  ;  hvX  to  the  tii^ 
cuman  itsslf. 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XXiil 

are  at  war  with  the  Quakers.  Nay,  we  must  not 
even  set  forth  the  sacred  volume  as  the  sole  stand- 
ard of  the  Christian,  in  as  much  as  this  would 
amount  to  a  direct  attack  upon  the  Quakers,  who 
are  peculiarly  distinguished  by  the  opinion  that 
the  light  within  is  superior  even  to  the  written 
word. 

Do  we,  following  the  standards  of  the  Church, 
inform  our  people  that  Almighty  God,  by  his  UoW 
Spirit,  has  appointed  the  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons  in  his  Church ;  and  has  given  to  the 
highest  order  the  exclusive  power  of  transmitting 
the  sacerdotal  office  by  ordination  ?  This  is  no- 
thing less  than  an  attack  upon  the  whole  body  of 
our  Christian  brethren  who  may  have  laid  aside 
Episcopacy  for  Presbytery, 

To  avoid  offending  the  Calvinist  we  must  never 
assert  the  universality  of  redemption;  or  call  in 
question  the  infallible  perseverance  of  the  Saints. 
And  to  avoid  offending  the  Socinian  we  must 
keep  the  doctrine  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of 
Christ  out  of  view,  and  all  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples with  which  it  is  connected. 

Why  not  go  on  and  say  that  not  a  word  is  to 
escape  us  which  may  imply  disapprobation  of  anv 
of  the  gross  errors  or  corruptions  of  popery  ? 

6.  But  religious  controversy  is  so  often  con- 
ducted in  an  unchristian  spirit — it  is  so  grossly 


XXiV  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

abused.  This  is,  indeed,  most  true.  But  when  the 
abuses  of  controversy  are  objected  to  us,  we  have 
to  reply,  first,  that  they  are  the  abuses  of  a  thing 
which  it  is  impossible  to  dispense  with,  and,  of 
course,  must  be  borne ;  secondly,  that  they  are  by 
no  means  necessarily  connected  with  it;  and  that 
the  conclusion  to  which  such  a  mode  of  reasoning 
leads  is,  not  that  we  should  cease  from  religious 
discussion,  but  that  we  should  conduct  it  in  the 
proper  temper. 

What  has  been  more  grossly  abused  than  Christi- 
anity itself!  How  many  crimes  have  been  per- 
petrated in  its  name !  What  a  system  of  civil  and 
religious  tyranny  was  erected  upon  it  in  the  dark 
ages !  Shall  we  lay  aside  Christianity  because  it 
has  been,  and  may  still  be  perverted  to  wicked 
purposes?  No,  we  must  endeavour  to  guard  it 
from  corruption,  and  thus  secure  its  unmingled 
blessings. 

It  is,  indeed,  most  painful  to  reflect  on  the  spi- 
rit in  which  Christians  have  disputed  with  one 
another.  The  glorious  sera  of  the  Reformation 
we  look  back  to,  on  many  accounts,  with  feelings 
of  exultation  and  delight ;  it  places  human  nature, 
in  some  respects,  in  the  most  illustrious  point  of 
view.  But  if  we  attend  to  the  style  in  which  re- 
ligious discussion  was  conducted,  we  shall  find 
cau?e  for  deep  regret  and  humiliation.     The  po- 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XX\ 

leniical  writings  of  the  greatest  and  best  men 
among  the  Protestants  were  marked  with  a  viru- 
lence which  excites  our  astonishment.  It  is  true, 
they  had  long  sulTered  under  a  most  odious  and 
unrelenting  tyranny ;  the  pubUc  mii]d  was  deeply 
agitated ;  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  shaking 
the  enormous  and  disgusting  mass  of  popery,  but 
by  a  strong  address  to  tlic  passions,  as  well  as  the 
understanding.  But  even  when  we  make  the  al- 
lowances which  this  view  of  the  subject  imperi- 
ously requires,  we  start  back  from  the  intempe- 
rance of  abuse  which  Luther  and  Calvin  poured 
out  upon  their  adversaries.  The  worst  feature, 
indeed,  in  the  writings  of  these  men,  is  the  acri- 
mony with  which  they  attacked  their  Protestant 
brethren  who  differed  from  them.  Still  they  were 
sincere,  zealous,  and  undaunted  in  the  cause  of 
Christ;  ready,  at  any  moment,  to  seal  their  at- 
tachment to  it  with  their  blood.  Eminently  pious, 
however,  as  every  impartial  inquirer  must  admit 
them  to  have  been,  they  were,  nevertheless,  un- 
der the  dominion,  in  no  inconsiderable  degree,  of 
passions  which  the  Gospel  should  have  taught 
them  to  subdue.  But,  disgraceful  as  much  of 
the  contention  that  marked  the  period  of  the  Re- 
formation is  to  our  common  Christianity,  will  any 
reasonable  man  deny  that  the  keen  discussions  of 
that  period  produced  a  most  salutary  effect  upon 

d 


XXVI  PRELIMINARY    REMARkS. 

the  human  mind,  and  prepared  the  way  for  that 
diffusion  of  rehgious  light  which  distinguishes  the 
present  age?  In  consequence,  indeed,  of  this 
diffusion  of  religious  light,  controversy  itself  has 
been  greatly  improved  in  its  spirit.  The  subject 
of  religious  toleration,  has  come,  at  length,  to  be 
thoroughly  understood  ;  and  men  begin,  in  their 
theological  disputes,  to  approach  much  more  nearly 
to  the  evangelical  temper. 

The  result,  then,  is,  as  we  have  already  ob- 
served, not  that  we  should  cease  to  discuss  re- 
ligious subjects,  but  that  we  should  discuss  them 
in  the  spirit  of  Christian  meekness.  When  con- 
troversy is  conducted  in  this  way,  we  cannot  very 
well  have  too  much  of  it.  In  fact,  it  was  de- 
signed by  God  to  be  the  great  mean  of  purifying, 
and  of  guarding  the  faith. 

What  course  of  conduct,  then,  is  it  our  duty  to 
pursue  towards  our  fellow  Christians  of  other  de- 
nominations? We  should  cherish  for  them  the 
most  sincere  good  will.  Bound,  as  we  are,  te 
wish  well  to  all  men,  it  is  especially  our  duty  to 
view  with  an  eye  of  affection,  those  who  profess 
the  name  of  Jesus,  and  unite  with  us  in  the  cor- 
dial reception  of  those  precious  doctrines  of  the 
cross  which  constitute  the  very  life  blood  of  the 
Gospel.  This  is  the  true  spirit  of  Christian  cha- 
rity— a  spirit  perfectly  consistent  with  the  zealous 


PRELIMINARY   REMARKS.  XXVll 

prosecution  and  defence  of  what  we  esteem  the 
cause  of  rrligious  truth.     We  are  to  display  the 
meekness  and  affectionateness  of  the    Christian 
temper  in  our  intercourse  with  our  brethren  of 
other  denominations ;  but  we  are  not  to  sacrifice 
our  principles  to  theirs : — ^nay,  we  are   not  to  be 
afraid  to  contend  firmly  against  what  we  conceive 
to  be  error,  even  at  the  hazard  of  deeply  offend- 
ing those  by  whom  it  is  embraced.     The  Apostles 
were  surely  animated  by  the  true  spirit  of   the 
Gospel.    They  resisted  error  with  a  firmness  which 
nothing  could  shake;  and  propagated  truth  with 
an  unwearied  and  inextinguishable  zeal.     Jt  is  a 
false  charity  that  places  all  opinions  and  ail  com- 
munions upon  a  level — a  charity  which  religion, 
reason,    and   common    sense,    equally   disclaim. 
It  may  be  proper  even  to  avoid  all  situations  in 
which  we  should  be  in  danger  of  compromiting 
our  principles,  or  of  having  our  attachment  to  our 
distinctive  institutions  weakened.      There  is  no 
narrowness  of  spirit  in  this.     If  we  are  persuaded 
that  our  principles  are  true  and  important,  it  is 
Qur  sacred  duty  to  guard  them  by  all  prudent  and 
honourable    means.     This  is  perfectly  consistent 
with    the   utmost  good   will   towards  those   with 
whom  we  decline  to  unite,  and  a  readiness  to  do 
full  credit  to  their  honourable  efforts  in  a  good 
■cause.     We  may  contribute  to   the  same   noble 


XXVlil  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

object  in  a  mode  that  shall  be  attended  with  no 
danger  to  our  peculiar  principles.     If  we  thus  act, 
we  shall  grow  and  flourish.     But  should  Episco- 
palians place  themselves  in  situations  where  they 
w^ill  be  led  to  depart  from  the  principles  solemnly 
declared  by  their  Church,  it  is  to  be  apprehended 
that  very   fatal  consequences   will  ensue.     It  is 
quite  natural,  and,    therefore,    excusable  in  our 
brethren  of  other  denominations,  to  endeavour  to 
draw  us  into  situations  which  Avill  lead  us  practi- 
cally to  renounce  the  principles  which  distinguish 
us  from  them,  and  to  act  as  if  no  important  doc- 
trine was   involved   in   our  peculiar  institutions. 
But  shall  we  suffer  our  kindness  of  temper  to  get 
the  better  of   the  love  of   our  Church,    and  the 
conviction  of  her  superior  truth  and  excellence  ? 
She  is  a  pure  and  primitive  branch  of  the  mystical 
body  of  Christ.     They  who  have  separated  from 
her  are  bound  to  return  to  her  bosom.     This  is  the 
language  which  she  should  hold.     Let  her  never 
suffer  a  specious  liberality  to  induce  her  to  relax,  in 
the  smallest  degree,  in  the  maintenance  of  her  dis- 
tinctive principles.     If  she  acts  up  to  the  purity  of 
these  principles,  her  destiny  on  this  continent  will 
be  high  aiid  glorious.     She  is  noAV  rising  rapidly 
in  public  estimation.     Her  numbers  are  increas- 
ing; she  is  imbibing  more  and  more  deeply  the 
spirit  of  her  admirable  institutions  and  services; 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XXIX 

and  the  period  is  not  far  distant,  if  she  be  faithful 
to  herself,  when  she  will  be  the  bulwark  of  the 
faith  in  this  new  world.  Heresy  and  schism 
have  their  day.  Nothing  is  permanent  but  truth. 
Nothing  will  endure  to  the  end  of  the  world  but 
the  Apostolic  Church.  How  did  those  powerful 
and  turbulent  schismatics,  the  Novatians,  the 
Arians,  the  Donatists,  notwithstanding  their  num- 
bers and  fiery  zeal,  at  length  pass  away;  leaving 
the  Apostolic  Church  to  hold  on  her  steady  course, 
and  to  encounter  new  heresies  from  age  to  age. 
The  Presbyterians  in  England,  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Ann,  composed  two  thirds  of  the  whole 
dissenting  body;  now  they  amount  to  scarcely  a 
twentieth  part  of  that  body.* 

What  God  has  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 
asunder.  Tlie  Church  was  established  by  its  di- 
vine Author,  as  a  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth. 
It  was,  emphatically,  declared  to  be  but  one; 
and  all  men  were  commanded  to  be  of  its  com- 
munion. The  sum  of  religion  consists  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  God.  When  man  undertakes  to  be 
so  wise  as  to  strike  out  into  paths  of  his  own,  the 
consequences  never  fail,  ultimately,  to  be  most 
pernicious.  Accordingly,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  Church  and  the  faith  mutually  flourish  in  pro- 
portion as  they  are  united  with  each  other.  Look, 

*  Quarterly  Review,  vol.  x.  p.  126. 


XXX  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

for  a  moment,  at  the  condition  of  the  Christian 
world.  Papal  Europe  is  overwhelmed  with  infi- 
delity.* S'hismatic  Protestant  Europe  has  de- 
clined very  much  into  Arianism  and  Socinianism. 
The  Apostolic  Church  of  England  was  the  bul- 
wark of  the  Reformation,  and  she  is  now  the 
bulwark  of  the  orthodox  faith.  What  has  become 
of  those  societies  which  were  dissatisfied  with  her 
wise  and  prudent  reformation  from  popery,  and 
left  her  communion;  setting  up  Presbyterial  go- 
vernment, extempore  prayer,  and  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine ?  They  first  became  Arian,  and  now  are, 
very  generally,  Socinian.  The  people  who  would 
not  be  contented  with  the  39  Articles,  because 
not  sufficiently  Calvinistic,  have  thrown  off  the 
absurdities  of  Calvinism  only  to  rush  into  apos- 
ta-y  from  the  faith.  But  such  is  the  law  of  our 
nature.  Extremes  beget  their  contras.  A  per- 
nicious error  seldom  fails  to  plunge  its  advocates, 
after  a  time,  into  the  exactly  opposite  error. 

The  union  of  the  true  faith  with  the  true  Church 
is  most  strikingly  exemplified  in  England.  It  is, 
and,  in  all  probability,  will  continue  to  be  no  less 
strikingly  exemplified  in  this  country.  What  an 
alarming  defection  from  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
Christianity  has   taken   place   in   Massachusetts! 

*  The  Papists  have  separated  thcmsclres  frem  the  Apostolic  Church, 
and  are  in  a  state  of  sghisra. 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XXXI 

The  leaven  is  at  work  in  the  other  parts  of  New- 
England;  and  it  is  mnch  to  be  apprehended  that 
a  great  proportion  of  the  Congregationalists  of 
that  country,  will,  sooner  or  later,  embrace  the 
errors  of  Arius  and  Socinus.  The  evil,  after 
pervading  the  Congregational  societies,  will  be 
very  apt  to  find  its  way  into  the  Presbyterian 
body.  So  that  here,  not  less  than  in  Great-Bri- 
tain and  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  the  Apos- 
k)lic  Church  and  the  Apostolic  faith  will  be  found 
in  a  slate  of  intimate  union.*  If  God  has  es- 
tablished a  Church  as  the  guardian  and  keeper  of 
the  faith,  all  separation  from  this  Church,  it  may 

*  The  Churches  of  Sweden  and  Denmark  were  reformed  upon  Epis- 
copal principles.  They  retained  the  Apostolic  constitution  of  the 
ministry.  According'ly,  they  have  preserved  the  great  and  distin- 
guishing doctriiies  of  the  Gospel.  But  how  lamentably  have  Protest- 
ant Germany,  Protestant  Holland,  Protestant  Switzerland  declined 
from  these  doctrines  !  Even  in  Scotland — to  which  Presbyterians  ap- 
peal for  the  salutary  influence  of  their  system ;  although,  in  truth, 
the  effect  has  been  produced,  chiefly,  by  the  admirable  institution 
of  parochial  schools — the  editors  of  the  Christian  Observer  tell  us 
that  the  rigid  system  of  the  established  Church  has  had  the  effect  of 
dividing  the  literary  population  into  the  two  great  classes  of  bigoU- 
and  sceptics ■\  This  will  ever  be  the  case  where  the  peculiarities  of 
Calvinism  are  inculcated.  In  those  who  embrace  them  they  will  pro- 
duce a  contracted  and  severe  spirit;  while  such  as  finaliy  shake  ofi^ 
the  yoke,  will  be  likely  to  pass  far  beyond  the  line  wliich  separates 
Calvinism  from  pure  Christianity,  and  to  reject  even  the  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  of  the  cross. 


\  Not  having  before  me  the  number  of  the  Christian  Observer  which  coi^- 
tains  this  statement,  I  can  only  refer  generally,  to  the  Review  of  a  fHrevell 
address  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cliftlmers  to  his  people.  In  this  review  will  be  foiind 
somQ  admirable  remarks  on  the  practical  effects  of  C'alviuism, 


XXXll  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

be  taken  for  granted,  will  be  likely  to  terminate 
in  infidelitj.  This  proposition,  so  reasonable  in 
itself,  is  abundantly  confirmed,  as  has  been  al- 
ready shown,  by  the  state  of  the  Christian  world. 

Let  lis,  then.  Episcopalians,  elevate  our  minds 
to  the  high  and  momentous  duties  which  are  be- 
fore us.  We  are  under  an  awful  responsibility. 
Upon  us  the  preservation  of  the  true  faith,  on  this 
continent,  under  God,  depends.  And  we  shall 
never  fulfil  our  sacred  trust  unless  our  minds  be 
penetrated  with  a  deep  sense  of  the  superior  ex- 
cellence of  the  doctrine  and  worship  of  our  Church, 
and  vvith  a  sincere  conviction  of  the  Apostolic 
claims  of  her  ministry. 

Let  us  never  be  afraid  to  proclaim  the  truth; 
but  let  us  always  endeavour  to  proclaim  it  in  the 
spirit  of  Christian  love.  Many  of  those  who  have 
separated  from  us  adhere  with  a  noble  zeal  to  the 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  cross.  They  are 
still  our  brethren  in  Christ.  We  may  love  their 
persons,  while  we  strenuously  oppose  their  errors. 
Adorning  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  by  a 
holy  zeal  for  his  truth  and  his  Church,  mingled 
with  that  spirit  of  meekness  and  brotherly  affec- 
tion, without  which  the  most  exact  conformity  to 
external  institutions,  or  even  the  most  strict  ad- 
herence to  the  orthodox  faith  will  profit  us  nothing; 
tvo  may  hope  that  the  blessing  of  God  will  sig- 


PRELIMINARY    REMARICS.  XXXlli 

nally  crown  our  labours,  and  look  forward  to  the 
period  when,  Christians  being  gathered  into  one 
fold,  the  Church  shall  exhibit  the  heavenly  spec- 
tacle of  a  society  at  union  with  itself. 

That  period  of  blessedness  to  the  Church,  which 
the  Prophets  so  particularly  foretel,  will  be  dis- 
tinguished, we  are  taught  to  believe,  by  a  much 
more  general  connexion  of  Christians  in  one  com- 
munion. And  the  tendency  toward  this  connex- 
ion may  be  expected  to  increase  as  the  happy 
period  in  question  shall  approach*  There  are  not 
wanting  circumstances,  at  the  present  moment^ 
which  give  reason  to  hope  that  the  Apostolic 
Church  is  about  to  be  greatly  enlarged,  not  only 
by  the  extension  of  her  system  to  regions  which 
are  now  sunk  in  the  darkness  of  paganism,  but 
also  by  the  return  of  many  of  those  who  ought 
never  to  have  been  separated  from  hen*     Certain 


*  The  work  of  converting-  the  Heathen  is  likely  to  go  on  with  suc- 
cess in  India.  From  the  connexion  which  subsists  between  Great- 
Britain  and  that  country,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  great 
body  of  the  Christians  of  India  will  be  regularly  organized  upon  Epis- 
copal principles.  The  vast  efforts  which  England  is  making  for  the 
diffusion  of  Christianity  throughout  the  world,  will,  probably,  assume, 
more  and  more,  the  same  primitive  direction.  The  conversion  of  the 
Jews  has  actually  commenced.  A  society,  having  this  object  in  view, 
was  established,  some  time  since,  in  London ;  and  has  published  several 
annual  reports.  When  converts  began  to  be  made  to  Christianity,  it 
became  necessary  to  organize  them  into  regular  congregations.  The 
tjuestion  presented  itself— upon  what  plan  shall  the  organization  pro- 
ceed ?  Very  much  to  the  honour  of  the  Dissenters  who  v/ere  niembers 
of  the  society,  tliey  perceived  the  propriety  of  the  business  being  con. 

e 


^XXiv  PRELIiMINARY    REMARKS* 

it  is,  that  the  Church  differs  from  what  her  great 
Head  intended  her  to  be  in  proportion  as  she  is  di- 

ducted  upon  the  plan  of  the  established  Church,  and  clieerfully  as- 
sented to  it ;  engag-ing-,  at  tlie  same  time,  to  continue  their  patronage 
of  the  institution.  A.n  event  of  this  kind  opens  the  most  delightful 
prospect  to  the  friends  of  primitive  order  and  piety. 

A  national  society  has  lately  been  established  in  England  for  the 
purpose  of  educating  the  v/hole  body  of  the  poor,  upon  the  new  sys- 
tem invented  by  Dr.  Bell,  in  the  principles  of  the  established  Church. 
It  is  proceeding  with  great  zeal  and  success.  Vast  sums  have  been 
subscribed  towards  its  funds,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
it  will  be  able  to  conduct  its  operations  upon  a  scale  as  extensive  as  its 
title  and  constitution  imply.  There  was  an  addition,  during  the  yeav 
ending  with  June,  1814,  of  upwards  of  twenty  thousand  children  to  its 
different  schools.  Children  are  admitted  into  its  schools  without  re- 
ference to  the  religious  profession  of  tlieir  parents  :  it  is,  however, 
the  established  rule  of  the  institution  that  tlie  children  belonging  to  it 
shall  attend  public  worship  in  the  national  Church ;  subject  to  suck 
exceptions,  indeed,  as  the  managers  may  think  proper  to  make  in  parti- 
cular cases.  Numerous  instances  have  occurred  in  which  the  children 
of  Dissenters,  being  sent  to  these  schools,  have  attended  the  Church  of 
England,  and,  in  a  little  while,  have  been  followed  by  their  parents. 
In  this  way  the  society  will,  probably,  have  a  very  powerful  effect  in 
promoting  ecclesiastical  union.  The  Church  of  England,  indeed,  is 
rousing  herself  to  the  most  extended  and  vigorous  exertions.  A  few 
years  since,  the  Dissenters  appeared  to  be  gaining  ground  so  fast  as  to 
threaten  ultimately  to  overwhelm  her.  The  pressure  has  happily 
served  greatly  to  augment  her  zeal,  and  her  efforts.  The  tide  is 
turned ;  and  the  prospect  now  is,  that  the  Church  will  di*aw  back  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  separatists  to  her  communion. 

The  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland  is  increasing  rapidly  in  numbers 
and  in  influence.  The  same  may,  certainly,  be  said  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States.  Her  progress  within  the 
last  twenty  years  has  been  uncommonly  great.  In  Connecticut  she  bids 
fair  soon  to  become  the  predominant  religious  society;  and  in  every 
diocess  of  tlie  union  she  is  advancing  in  strength  and  respectability. 
The  period,  also,  is  approaching  when  prophecy  gives  us  reason  to  ex- 
pect 'Kit  the  Greek  Church  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  purified 
from  their  errors  and  corruptions,  will  return,  in  a  good  degree,  to  the 
piety  of  the  primitive  times.  Almost  the  whole  of  tlie  Christian  world 
will  then  be  arranged  upon  the  model  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  Those 
dissenting  societies  which  have  departed  from  the  Apostolic  ministry. 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  XXXV 

Tided  into  hostile  societies.     It  was  never  the  de- 
sign that  altar  should  be  raised  against  ahar.     On 
the  contrary,  this  is  forbidden  by  our  Lord  in  the 
most   express   and   solemn   terms.     History,    ac- 
cordingly, will  inform  us  that   nothing   retarded 
so  much  the  progress  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  dis- 
graceful sects  that  sprung  up,  from  time  to  time, 
in  the  primitive  Church.     And,  in  every  age,  the 
division  of  Christians  into  separate  and  conflicting 
societies,  with  the  horrible  cruelties  to  which  such 
division   has   given   rise,    has   contributed    more, 
perhaps,  than  any  other  cause,  to  prevent  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  dying  prayer  of  our  Lord  to 
his  Father — "  Neither  pray  1  for  these  alone,  but 
for  them  also  which  shall  believe  in  me  through 
their  word:     That  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee ;  that  they  also 
may  be  one  in  us:    that  the  world  may  be- 
lieve   THAT    THOU    HAST   SENT    ME."* 


v/ill,  probably,  diminish  in  number;  some  of  their  members  i*eturnlng 
to  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  and  others  going-  over  to  Arum  ism,  Soci- 
nianism,  and  open  infidelity.  So  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  scene, 
the  true  Church  and  the  true  faith  will  be  closely  connected ;  and 
schism  will  be  proved  to  be  the  undoubted  parent  of  heresy.  The 
whole  course  of  events  will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  happi- 
ness, not  less  than  the  duty  of  man  lies  in  unvarying  conformity  to  the 
divine  law ;  all  departure  therefrom  never  failing,  sooner  or  ia.ttr,  to 
terminate  in  confusion  and  ruin. 

*  St.  John,  chap.  xvii.  20,  21.  The  prayer  of  our  Lord  for  the 
unity  of  his  followers,  was  offered,  we  see,  upon  the  express  ground 
that  the  world  might  be  thus  led  to  believe  in  his  divine  mission.  Is 
there  not,   then,  full  reason  to  conclude  that  the  diffusion  of  Chris- 


ttXVl  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

Who  will  refuse  to  join  in  hailing  the  trium- 
phant period  when  Christians,  embracing  each 
other  as  members  of  one  fold,  shall  fulfil  the 
prayer  of  their  Lord  ?  For  which  blessed  purpose, 
may  all  prejudice  be  taken  away  on  one  side,  all 
loftiness  on  the  other ;  and  all  parties  be  disposed 
toward  that  teachable  temper  which  forms  the 
character  of  the  true  followers  of  the  humble  and 
holy  Jesus! 


tianlty  throughout  the  earth,  and  the  return  of  believers  to  that  Apos- 
tolic communion  of  which  they  were  all  required  to  be  members, 
will,  in  a  great  de|^ee,  keep  pace  witli  one  another  ? 


A  VINDICATlON.^^fc: "•— "^ 

/COL.GOLL 

LIBRAK^ 

Ts  ^  OP  K 
INTRODUCTORY  LE^fT^R    * 


Sir, 


I^EVERAL  years  have  elapsed  since  the  piibli 
cation  of  your  second  volume  on  the  "  Constitu- 
tion  and   Order   of  the    Christian   Ministry."     I 
formed  the  determination  of  replying  to  this  work 
immediately    upon   reading   it;    and    proceeded, 
without  delay,  to  make  preparations  for  carrying 
my  determination  into  effect.    When  I  had  nearly 
finished  my  answer,  a  Series  of  Letters,  addressed 
to  you  by  a  learned  divine*  of  our  Church,  was 
published,  which  appeared  to  me  to  contain  so 
full  a  refutation  of  the  most  important  parts  of 
your  book,  as  to  render  any  further  notice  of  it 
unnecessary.     Accordingly,  I  came,  pretty  much, 
to  the  conclusion  to  remain  silent ;  especially  as 
you  had  declared  your  intention  to  take  no  further 
part  in  the  Episcopal  controversy.!    But  you  con- 
tinued to  renew  the  attack,  in  different  forms,  on 
the  doctrines  and  order  of  our  Church ;  publish- 
ing, in  1811,  a  Sermon  on  the  subject  of  lay  el- 

•  The  Rev.  Dr.  Bowden.  f  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  431- 


b  INTRODUCTORY    LETTER. 

ders;  and,  in  1813,  a  Life  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rodgcrs; 
both  of  which  contain  matter  which  the  sincere 
Episcopalian  must  regard,  not  only  as  inaccurate 
in  itself,  but  as  very  pernicious  in  its  tendency. 
Now,  when  a  particular  system  of  doctrines  or  in- 
stitutions is  strongly  opposed  from  the  press,  it  is 
of  very  little  consequence  in  what  precise  shape 
the  opposition  appears.  Upon  seeing  you  thus 
persevere  in  your  animadversions  upon  our  Church. 
I  resolved  to  finish  my  reply  to  your  work  on  the 
^*  Constitution  and  Order  of  the  Christian  Minis- 
try," and  to  connect  wdth  it  a  brief  examination  of 
some  of  the  assertions  and  charges  in  your  liife 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rodgers.  This  last  publication, 
especially,  had  given  great  offence  to  many  Epis- 
copalians, and  was  thought  to  require  notice.  Do 
not  misunderstand  me.  I  am  far  from  intending  to 
find  fault  with  you  for  continuing  to  defend  the 
principles  of  your  own  religious  society,  or  to  op- 
pose those  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  I  mean 
merely  to  say  that  you  have  thought  proper  to 
prolong  the  discussion,  and  that  the  publication 
of  the  present  work  has  thus  been  rendered  ne- 
cessary. 

In  the  present  imperfect  state,  controversy  is 
unavoidable;  being,  indeed,  the  only  w^ay  of  disco- 
vering and  preserving  truth.  It  should  ever  be  con- 
ducted with  the  utmost  frankness.  We  are  not  at 
liberty  to  soften  down  the  truth  in  order  to  avoid  giv- 
ing offence.  It  is  our  most  solemn  duty  to  oppose 
what  we  deem  pernicious  error.  We  are  to  take 
care  that  our  zeal  proceed  from  the  right  motive 


INTRODUCTORY    LETTER.  7 

— a  sacred  regard  for  the  purity  of  divine  truth, 
and  for  the  best  interests  of  man,  as  connected 
with  it.  A  distinction  is  ever  to  be  made  between 
error  itself,  and  the  persons  who  embrace  it.  To 
the  first  we  may  be  intolerant;  but,  with  respect 
to  the  last,  we  must  remember  that  they  are  our 
brethren,  and  allow  no  feelings  to  arise  in  our 
minds  towards  them,  but  those  of  Christian  be- 
nevolence; for  we  are,  above  all  things,  to  love 
one  another.  If  this  distinction  be  kept  constantly 
in  view,  we  may  contend  zealously  for  truth; 
while  we  freely  exercise  charity.  I  know  there 
is  great  difficulty  in  doing  this.  That  I  shall  in- 
variably observe  the  distinction  in  the  ensuing 
pages,  it  would  betray  an  improper  confidence 
absolutely  to  promise;  but  I  can,  at  least,  say  that 
I  am  conscious  of  no  other  feelings  towards  you 
than  those  of  sincere  good  will,  and  that  I  should 
deeply  regret  any  thing  that  should  interrupt  a 
friendly  intercourse.  Some  parts  of  your  works, 
on  which  I  am  to  remark,  1  regard,  I  will  can- 
didly confess  to  you,  as  highly  exceptionable. 
I  hope,  however,  I  shall  not  forget  to  make 
due  allow^ance  for  those  exaggerations  and  obli- 
quities to  which  even  good  men  are  liable  in 
the  ardour  of  discussion,  and  that  I  shall  con- 
stantly keep  it  in  mind,  that  the  forbearance, 
which  I  feel  called  upon  to  exercise  towards 
others,  may  be  necessary,  even  when  self-love 
may  tell  me  I  am  blameless,  to  be  practised 
towards  myself.  Entertaining  a  high  respect  for 
the  virtues  and  piety  of  many,  both  among  the 


8  liNTRODUCTORY    LETTER. 

«  lergy  and  laity  of  your  religious  body,  nothing 
could  be  more  painful  to  me  than  the  reflection 
that  I  had  given  them  just  ground  of  offence. 
I  wish  to  plead  the  cause  of  primitive  truth  and 
order  with  firmness,  but  with  humility.  God  for- 
bid that  any  defender  of  our  Church  should  be 
disposed  to  assume  airs  of  triumph  in  reference 
to  such  of  our  Christian  brethren  as  have  departed, 
according  to  our  view,  from  the  Apostolic  com- 
munion! Far  be  from  us  all  such  unworthy 
feelings! — No — While  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
consent  to  the  slightest  modification  of  our  doc- 
trines, or  to  abstain  from  a  free  and  explicit 
declaration  of  them  out  of  delicacy  to  others; 
we  would  wish,  by  our  manner  of  declaring 
them,  to  evince  to  our  Christian  brethren  that 
we  are  governed  by  a  sacred  sense  of  duty,  and 
that  our  strenuous  opposition  to  their  religious 
system,  has  not  had  the  effect  of  obliterating  those 
sentiments  of  affection  which  should  ever  unite 
Jhe  followers  of  the  same  blessed  Master. 


(  9  ) 

LETTER  II. 
exterj^Mj  order. 

Sir, 

JGiXTENSIVE  currency  has  been  given  to  very 
inaccurate  ideas  in  relation  to  the  External 
OjiDER  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  subject  is  highly  important,  and  it  will  be 
impossible  to  place  it  in  a  just  point  of  light,  with- 
out descending  to  considerable  minuteness  of  dis- 
cussion. 

The  advocates  of  Episcopacy  have,  certainly^ 
no  small  reason  to  complain  of  the  unfair  treat- 
ment which  they  have  received.  Their  principles 
have  been  greatly  misrepresented,  and  are  now 
very  far  from  being  correctly  understood.  Let  me 
beseech  your  indulgence,  while  I  endeavour  to  do 
them  a  little  justice.  Repeated  explanations  have, 
indeed,  been  already  given ;  but  they  have  been 
almost  entirely  disregarded. 

I  propose  to  institute  a  full  comparison  be- 
tween the  language  and  principles  of  our  respec- 
tive societies  on  the  subject  of  External  Order.  It 
will  appear,  I  think,  from  the  detail  into  which  I 
shall  enter,  that  the  Presbyterial  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is  much  more  strict  and  exclusive  than  the 
Episcopal  doctrine.  It  will  appear,  also,  that  the 
defenders  of  the  Church,  in  the  allowance  which 
they  make  for  error,  cany  their  charitable  ideas  to 


10  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  lET.  IV 

an  extent  to  which  their  opponents  utterly  refuse 
to  follow  them. 

Let  me  entreat  the  candid  Presbyterian  to  ac- 
company me  in  an  examination  of  the  standards 
of  the  religious  society  to  which  he  belongs,  and 
of  the  writings  of  some  of  its  most  distinguished 
members. 

1.  Thfire  is  a  visible  society^  called  the  Churchy 
'instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  of  which  all 
men  are  commanded  to  become  members. 

This  is  the  Presbyterial  doctrine.  Indeed  it  is  a 
doctrine  which  we  meet  with  in  every  part  of  the 
sacred  writings.  The  whole  language  of  Scripture 
supposes  the  existence  of  an  outward  or  visible 
Church.  Take  a  few  examples — ''  Feed  the 
Church."*  "  Tell  it  unto  the  Church"—"  if  he 
neglect  to  hear  the  Church."t  "  God  hath  set 
some  in  the  Church ;  first,  apostles ;  secondarily, 
prophets ;  thirdly,  teachers."t  "  Give  none  offence 
to  the  Church  of  God."^  "  The  Lord  added  daily 
to  the  Church  such  as  should  be  saved."|| 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  there  is  an  outward  or  vi- 
sible society  called  the  Church,  and  that  this  so- 
ciety is  of  divine  institution.  So  plainly  is  this 
doctrine  recorded  in  the  sacred  volume,  that  Chris- 
tians almost  unanimously  subscribe  to  it.  Autho- 
rities need  scarcely  be  quoted  to  show  that  such  is 
the  language  of  the  Presbyterial  society;  but  as  I 
wish  to  prove  every  thing  that  I  state,  in  reference 
to  those  who  may  not  be  aware  of  what  their  own 

'*  Acta  XX.  28.  f  Matt,  xviii.  17.  i  1  Cor.  xii.  28. 

$  1  Cor.  x.  3^.  0  Acts  ii.  47 


LET.  II.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  11 

religious  articles  say  on  the  subject  of  External 
Order,  I  must  beg  you  to  excuse  the  tedious  detail 
which  it  will  render  necessary. 

"  The  visible  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of 
which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation." 

This  is  the  express  language  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith,  which  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in 
the  United  States,  have  adopted  as  their  standard 
of  doctrine.* 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Church 
in  the  Netherlands,  which  is  the  standard  of  doc- 
trine of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  North- 
America,  speaking  of  the  visible  Church,  uses  the 
following  language — "  Out  of  it  there  is  no  salva- 
tion." "  No  person,  of  whatsoever  state  or  con- 
dition he  may  be,  ought  to  withdraw  himself,  to 
live  in  a  separate  state  from  it;  but  all  men  are  in 
duty  bound  to  join  and  unite  themselves  with  it, 
maintaining  the  unity  of  the  Church,  submitting 
themselves  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  thereof." 
"  All  those  who  separate  themselves  from  the  same, 
or  do  not  join  themselves  to  it,  act  contrary  to  the 
ordinance  of  God."t 

The  same  language  is  held  by  Presbyterian  au- 
thors. You  expressly  describe  the  visible  Church 
as  "  that  household  of  God  to  which  his  gracious 


*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  2.  Constitution 
and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  p.  145,  146, 

t  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  Netherlands^ 
article  xxviii. 


12  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IL 

jDromises,  ai>d  his  life-giving  spirit  are  vouchsaf- 
ed."* The  Editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine  en- 
ters into  a  long  and  systematic  argument  to  prove 
the  existence  of  one  CathoUc  visible  Church — 
"  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upon  earth, 
where  he  has  deposited  his  truth,  and  instituted 
his  ordinances.-'t 

2.  God  has  established  a  ininlstiij  in  the  Churchy 
which  he  has  made  essential  to  its  existence. 

Clergymen  are  ambassadors  of  heaven.J  They 
are  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  They  are 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.^  It  is  not  sufficient  to 
form  a  Church  that  there  be  a  body  of  people 
united  by  the  profession  of  the  same  faith,  and 
holding  communion  with  one  another.  There  must 
be  agents  commissioned  of  God,  having  authority 
to  sign  and  seal,  to  bless  and  absolve,  in  his  name. 

Such  is  the  Presbyterial  doctrine. 

"  Unto  this  Catholic  visible  Church  Christ  hath 
given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God, 
for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints  in 
this  life  to  the  end  of  the  world. "||  "  The  Lord 
Jesus,  as  King  and  Head  of  his  Church,  hath  there- 
in appointed  a  government  in  the  hand  of  Church 
officers,  distinct  from  the  civil  magistrate."  "  To 
these  officers  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven 
are  committed ;  by  virtue  whereof  they  have  power 
respectively  to  retain  and  remit  sins,  to  shut  that 


•  Letters,  p.  342.         f  Christian's  Magazine,  vol.  i.  p.  57 — 73, 
^  2  Cor.  V.  20.  §  1  Cor.  iv.  1. 

II  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  3.     Constitution 
and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  p.  147. 


cLET.  TI.  EXTERNAL  ORDER,  13 

kingdom  against  the  impenitent,  both  by  the  word 
and  censures;  and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sin- 
ners, by  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel,  and  by  abso- 
lution from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require."* 

Attend  to  the  language  of  Calvin — "  Neither  the 
light  nor  heat  of  the  sun,  nor  meat  and  drink  are 
so  necessary  to  nourish  atid  sustain  this  present  life, 
as  the  office  of  the  apostles  and  pastors  is  necessary 
to  preserve  the  Church. ''f 

But  let  me  refer  you  to  a  modern  authority,  on 
which  you  bestow  very  high  praise.  "  Her  minis- 
try enters  into  her  very  being.  Had  the  ministry 
ever  been  destroyed,  the  Church  would  have  been 
destroyed  too.  "J 

The  doctrine,  that  a  ministry  is  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  visible  Church,  may  be  proved  to 
be  the  Presbyterial  doctrine  by  the  following  short 
process  of  reasoning. 

We  can  be  admitted  into  the  Church  only  by 
the  sacrament  of  baptism.^  It  follows,  that  the 
Church  cannot  exist  without  baptism ;  otherwise 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxx.  sect.  1,  2.  Consti- 
tution  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  p.  164,  165. 

t  Calvin's  Institutes,  Book  IV.  chap.  iii.  sect.  2. 

t  Christian's  Mag-azine,  vol.  i.  p.  219. 

§  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  for  the 
solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  into  the  visible  Church,  but 
also,"  &c.     Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxviii.  sect.  1. 

"  Sacraments  put  a  visible  difference  between  those  that  belong-  unto 
the  Church,  and  the  rest  of  the  world."     Ibid.  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  1. 

By  the  sacrament  of  baptism  we  are  admitted  into  the  Church ;  and 
the  sacraments  dlsting-uish  those  who  belong  to  tli£  Church,  from  those 
who  belon,?  to  the  world.  Of  course  baptism  is  the  oiihj  mode  of  ad- 
mission into  the  Church  :for,  if  there  be  any  other  mode  of  admission. 
It  cannot  possibly  be  said  that  the  sacraments  distinguish  the  World 
and  the  Church  from  eacJi  other. 


14  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IL 

there  may  be  a  society  without  the  possibility  of 
members;  which  is  a  contradiction.  What  is  a 
society,  but  an  organized  collection  of  individuals  ? 
What  is  a  Church,  but  an  organized  collection  of 
Church  members?  To  say,  then,  that  there  may 
be  a  Church  without  baptism,  is  to  say  that  there 
may  be  an  organized  collection  of  Church  mem- 
bers where  there  cannot  possibly  be  a  single  Church 
member.  Baptism,  of  course,  enters  into  the  very 
being  of  the  Church.  But  baptism  can  be  admi- 
nistered only  by  a  clergyman  lawfully  ordained.* 

The  Church  cannot  exist  without  baptism ;  there 
can  be  no  baptism  without  a  ministry;  of  course 
there  can  be  no  Church  without  a  ministry. 

But,  independently  of  this  process  of  reasoning, 
it  is  the  undoubted  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterial 
standards,  and  of  Presbyterial  authors,  that  a  mi- 
nistry, divinely  commissioned,  lies  at  the  very 
foundation  of  the  visible  Church. 

3.  An  external  commission  is  necessary  to  consti- 
tute a  minister  of  Christ, 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  a  man  in  entering 
upon  the  sacerdotal  office  that  he  fancies  himself 
to  be  internally  called  to  the  work.  He  must  be 
outwardly  set  apart,  ordained,  or  consecrated,  by 
imposition  of  hands.  What  would  be  the  conse- 
quence if  persons,  imagining  themselves  qualified 
for  the  ministration  of  holy  things,  were  at  liberty, 


"  "  There  be  only  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord  in 
the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  baptism  and  the  supper  of  tlie  Lord  :  neither 
of  which  may  be  dispensed  by  any  but  a  minister  of  the  Word^  laiofully 
ordained."    Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect  4- 


LET.  11.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  15 

without  further  ceremony,  to  assume  the  clerical 
character?     The  Church,  it  must  be  immediately 
seen,  could  not  exist  under  such  circumstances. 
She  would  be  overrun  with  clergymen  total!y  unfit, 
both  as  to  knowledge  and  as  to  character,  for  their 
sacred  function.     No  society,   indeed,   can  exist 
without  the  power  of  judging  of  the  qualifications 
of  its  officers.     The  language  of  Scripture,  on  this 
subject,  is,  accordingly,  very  explicit.     "  No  man 
taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is 
called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron. ""'^     Now,  Aaron  was 
visibly  consecrated,  or  set  apart  to  his  office.     So, 
therefore,    must  every  Christian  minister  be  set 
apart.     Further — Even  our  blessed  Saviour  "  glo- 
rified not  himself  to  be  made  an  High  Priest. "f 
He  entered  not  upon  his  public  ministration  until 
he  had  received  a  regular  external  commission. 
Who,    then,    shall  undertake   to   officiate    in   his 
Church  without  a  similar  commission?     Of  the 
internal  or  spiritual  qualification  of  our  blessed 
Saviour  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  there  could 
be  no  doubt.   For  what  purpose,  then,  did  he  sub- 
mit to  an  external  ordination,  but  that  he  might 
set  an  example  for  the  instruction  and  government 
of  all  succeeding  ages  ?     They,  who  undertake  to 
act  as  clergymen  upon  the  mere  strength  of  a  sup- 
posed internal  call,  not  only  violate  the  express 
command  of  Scripture,  but  make  themselves  wiser 
than  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church  himself  J 

*  Heb.  V.  4.  f  Heb.  v.  5. 

t  No  person,  certainly,  should  enter  upon  the  sacred  office  unless  he 
believes  himself  to  be  drawn  to  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost.    This  is  the  ex- 


16  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  II. 

On  this  subject  the  Presbyterial  standards  speak 
a  very  decided  language.  "  There  be  only  two 
sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord  in  the 
Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  baptism  and  the  supper  of 
the  Lord;  neither  of  which  may  be  dispensed  by 
any  but  a  minister  of  the  Word,  lawfully  ordained."* 
"  No  man  ouglit  to  take  upon  him  the  office  of 
a  minister  of  the  Word  without  a  lawful  calling." 
"  Ordination  is  always  to  be  continued  in  the 
Church."  "  Ordination  is  the  solemn  setting  apart 
of  a  person  to  some  public  Church  office."  "  Every 
minister  of  the  Word  is  to  be  ordained  by  imposi- 
tion of  hands  and  prayer,  with  fasting,  by  those 
preaching  Presbyters  to  whom  it  doth  belong. "t 


press  doctrine  of  (Xir  venerable  Church.  All  who  apply  for  orders  are 
required  to  declare  that  tliey  consider  themselves  called  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  the  work  of  the  ministry.  But  then  it  is  not  left  to  an  indivi- 
dual to  judge  for  himself.  There  is  a  tribunal  which  is  to  inquire  into 
the  fitness  of  candidates  When  a  person  is  considered  by  this  tribunal 
as  possessing'  the  requisite  qualifications,  he  is  to  be  solemnly  set  apart 
by  a  regular  ordination;  the  ordaining  Bishop  acting-  as  the  minister  of 
Christ,  and  thus  conveying  the  sacerdotal  office  from  our  blessed  Savi- 
our himself,  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church,  and  the  source  of  all  power 
in  it.  The  necessity  of  an  outward  ordination  arises  from  its  being  pre- 
scribed in  Scripture;  and  the  reason  of  the  prescription  must  immedi- 
ately present  itself  to  any  one  who  will  recollect  that,  without  suitable 
provision  for  the  appointment  of  proper  officers,  no  society,  civil  or  ec- 
clesiastical, could  possibly  subsist. 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  4.  Constitution 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  North-America,  p.  154. 

I  The  form  of  Presbyterial  Church  government  agreed  upon  by  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster;  examined  and  approved,  anno 
1645,  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

In  the  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
in  North-America,  this  language  of  the  Westminster  Divines,  and  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  is  adopted,  word  for 
word.    Constitution  and  Standards,  p.  497. 


LET.  II.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  17 

Such  is  the  language  of  the  Westminster  Divines, 
and  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland.  It  is  the  true  Presbyteriai  doctrine  rela- 
tive to  outward  ordination.  We  meet  with  it  ex- 
pressly and  repeatedly  in  your  Letters — "  None 
are  regularly  invested  with  the  ministerial  charac- 
ter, or  can  with  propriety  be  recognized  in  this 
character,  but  those  who  have  been  set  apart  to 
the  office  by  persons  lawfully  clothed  with  the 
power  of  ordaining."  "  We  suppose  that  ruling 
Elders  and  Deacons  are  not  authorized  to  labour 
in  the  word  and  doctrine,  or  to  administer  either  of 
the  Christian  sacraments."^ 

4.  Presbyterians  admit  no  ordination  hut  the  Pres- 
byteriai to  he  either  scriptural  or  valid. 

Nothing  can  be  more  explicit  than  your  lan- 
guage upon  this  subject.  '^  It  is  only  so  far  as  any 
succession  flows  through  the  line  of  Presbyters 
that  it  is  either  regular  or  valid.  It  is  the  Irying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  that  constitutes 
a  scriptural  ordination;  and  it  is  because  Epis- 
copal Bishops  are  Presbyters,  and  assisted  in  all 
ordinations  by  other  Presbyters,  that  we  consider 
(heir  ordaimng  acts,  on  the  principles  of  Scripture 
and  primitive  usage,  as  valid."t 

Precisely  similar  is  the  language  held  by  your 
friend  Dr.  M'Leod.  '^  A  person  who  is  not  ordain- 
ed to  office  by  a  Presbytery,  has  no  right  to  be 
received  as  a  minister  of  Christ:  his  administra- 
tion of  ordinances  is  invalid:  no  divine  blessing  is 

*  Letters,  p.  8,  9.  f  Ibid,  p.  347. 


13  EXTERiNAL  OKDER.  LET.  II. 

promised  upon  his  labours :  it  is  rebellion  against 
the  Head  ot'  the  Church  to  support  hi:n  in  his  pre- 
tensions: Christ  has  excluded  him  in  his  provi- 
dence from  admission  through  the  ordinary  door ; 
and  if  he  has  no  evidence  oi'  miraculous  power  to 
testify  his  extraordinary  mission,  he  is  an  impos- 
tor." "  It  is  improper  to  countenance  the  usurpa- 
tions of  prelacy,  or  the  irregularities  of  indepen- 
dency; but  since  the  Bishop,  who  claims  exclusively 
tlie  right  of  ordination,  does,  in/act^  relinquish  it, 
by  associating  other  ministers  with  him  in  the  im- 
position of  hands;  and  seeing  Independents  also 
relinquish  their  claim  of  right  of  ordaining,  each 
congregation  its  own  pastor,  by  giving  up  the  work 
into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  ordained,  the  or- 
dinances administered  in  the  Episcopal  and  Inde- 
pendent Churclies  are  held  valid:  the  ministry  is 
essentially  Presbyterian,  and  upon  this  principle 
there  is  no  necessity  for  re-ordaining  or  re-baptiz- 
ing any  who  have  had  these  ordinances  in  the 
communion  of  the  Independent  or  Episcopal 
Churches."* 

The  claims  set  up  in  the  Catechism  of  Dr. 
ArLeod,  and  in  your  Letters,  it  vvili  immediately 
be  seen,  are  as  exclusive  as  language  can  make 
them.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  find  fault  with 
you,  however,  since  you  do  nothing  more  than  lay 
down  the  true  Presbytcrial  doctrine,  as  set  fortli 
by  the  Westminster  Divines,  and  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  ''  Ordination 

•  M*Lcod's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  SJ9,  30.  31 


LET.  11.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  19 

iS  the  act  of  a  Presbytery. ''  '"  Preaching  Presby- 
ters, orderly  associated,  either  in  cities  or  neigh- 
bouring villages,  arc  those  to  whom  the  imposition 
of  hands  do  appertain,  for  those  congregations 
witliin  their  bounds  respectively."*  In  proof  of 
these  doctrines  the  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Timo- 
thy is  quoted,  and  thus  Presbyterial  ordination  is 
placed  on  the  ground  of  Scripture. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  North-Ame- 
rica adopts  the  foregoing  language  of  the  Westmin- 
vSter  Divines.t  Still  further — "  Presbyterial  Church 
government  is  the  true  and  only  form  of  govern- 
ment which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  prescribed 
in  his  Word."t  Now,  ordination  is  one  of  the 
powers  of  government.  It  can  be  exercised,  of 
course,  only  in  the  Presbyterial  mode.  Any  other 
mode  of  exercising  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Language  of  the  same  character  is  to  be  found 
in  the  standards  of  the  religious  society  to  which 
you  belong.  "  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the 
government  of  the  Church  be  exercised  under 
some  certain  and  definite  form.  And  we  hold  it 
to  be  expedient,  and  agreeable  to  Scripture^  and 
tlie  practice  of  the  primitive   Christians^   that  the 


*  Form  of  Presbyterial  Church  governmsnt  ageed  upon  by  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines  at  Westminster ;  examined  and  approved,  anno  1645, 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

t  Constitution  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  Norlh-Amcnc?. 
n.  497,  498. 

■   Ibid.  p.  4r5.  X 


20  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LEI.  IL 

Church  be  governed  by  Congregational,  Presbyte- 
rial,  and  Synodical  assemblies."* 

The  same  standards  admit  the  existence  of  but 
one  order  of  gospel  ministers.  To  this  order  they 
represent  the  power  of  ordination  as  confined.  The 
power  is  exercised  by  a  Presbytery.  "  The  pre- 
siding Bishop  shall,  by  prayer,  and  with  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  tlie  Presbytery,  according 
to  the  apostolic  p.rample^  solemnly  ordain  him  to  the 
holy  office  of  the  gospel  ministry."t 

Thus  the  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment is  placed  on  the  ground  of  Scripture.  Ordi- 
nation is  represented  as  the  act  of  a  Presbytery, 
and  this  is  referred  to  the  authority  of  apostolic 
example. 

But  I  am  dwelling  unnecessarily  on  this  part  of 
the  subject.  The  exclusive  validity  of  Presbyterial 
ordination  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Pres- 
byterial association. 

Mark,  then,  the  following  simple  train  of  pro- 
positions. 

1.  There  is  a  visible  society,  called  the  Church, 
instituted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  of  which  all 
men  are  commanded  to  become  members; 

2.  To  the  existence  of  this  Church  a  divinely 
appointed  ministry  is  essential; 

3.  There  can  be  no  ministry  without  an  external 
ordination ; 

•  Form  of  fiovcrnment  of  the  rreshyterian  Church  in  the   United 
Sta'cs,  chap.  vii.  sect.  1. 
I  Ibid.  chap.  xiv.  sect.  17 


LET.  H.  EXTEKiN/iL  ORDER.  21 

4.  And  no  ordination  is  valid  unless  Presbyteri- 
ally  performed. 

Thus  Presbyterial  ordination  is  the  basis  on 
which  the  whole  fabrick  of  the  Church  visible  is 
made  to  rest.* 

It  is  utterly  impossible  to  set  aside  the  foregoing 
plain  statement  of  facts. 

To  say  that  there  can  be  no  Church  without  a 
ministry,  and  that  there  can  be  no  ministry  with- 
out Presbyterial  ordination,  is  plainly  to  say  that 
there  can  be  ilo  Church  without  Presbyterial  ordi- 
nation. The  Westminster  Divines,  the  General 
Assembly  of  Scotland,  tlie  Associate  Reformed 
Church  in  North-America,  the  particular  society 
to  which  you  belong,  unite  in  declaring  the  mi- 
nistry to  be  essential  to  the  Church,  and  Presby- 
terial ordination  to  be  essential  to  the  ministry. 
They  all,  then,  make  the  very  existence  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  to  depend  on  ordination  by  the 
hands  of  a  Presbytery.  You  go  to  the  full  extent 
of  this  doctrine  in  the  Letters  which  you  have 
addressed  to  your  Christian  brethren ;  inveighing 
against  the  exclusive  claims  ol  your  neighbours  in 
the  very  breath  with  which  you  issue  claims  as 
exclusive  as  language  has  the  pow  er  of  express- 
ing. 

*  I  am  aware  that  you  admit  Episcopal  ordination  to  be  valid.  But 
you  do  not  admit  it  to  be  valid  as  contradistinguished  from  Presbyte< 
rial ;  nay,  you  represent  it  as  substantially  Presbyterial,  and  rest  its  va- 
lidity on  tliat  circumstance  alone.  Were  it  not  for  this,  you  would 
deem  it  necessary,  as  Dr.  M'Leod  expressly  tells  us,  to  re-baptize  Epis- 
copal la}Tnen,  and  to  re-ordain  Episcopal  priests.  But  this  subject 
%vill  be  fully  considered  in  my  next  letter. 


(     22     ) 

LETTER  in. 
EXTERKJiL  ORDER 

l^ET  113  now  endeavour  to  ascertain  the  degree 
of  value  which  Prcsbyterial  standards  and  Presby- 
terial  authors  attach  to  communion  with  the  visible 
Church;  thus  depending  on  ordination  by  Prcsby- 
terial liands  for  its  very  existence.  We  shall  then 
know  precisely  how  far  your  society  carries  its 
pretensions,  and  the  exact  degree  of  importance 
which  it  2;ives  to  External  Order. 

The  standards  of  Prcsbyterial  societies  expressly 
declare  that  there  is  no  covenanted  possibility 

OF  SALVATION  OUT  OF  THE  VISIBLE  ChURCH. 

Take  the  following  passage  from  the  Confession 
of  Faith  of  the  Church  of  Scotland:  "  The  sa- 
craments, as  well  of  the  Old  as  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, were  instituted  of  God  not  only  to  make  a 
VISIBLE  difference  betwixt  his  people  and  those 
that  were  without  his  league,  but  also,"*  &c. 

League  signifies  agreement,  or  covenant.  The 
sacraments  of  the  Church,  then,  put  a  visible  dif- 
ference between  those  who  are  in  league  or  cove- 

Tlic  confession  of  the  faith  and  doctrine  believed  and  professed 
by  the  Protestants  of  Scothind,  exliibited  to  the  esiates  of  the  sanie  in 
Parliament;  and  ratified  and  established  by  act  of  Parliament,  1567, 
im  the  public  and  avowed  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
'  -  ^      Article  xxi.  of  the  Sucramcnts. 


LET.  III.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  23 

nant  with  God,  and  those  who  arc  not  in  league  or 
covenant  with  hiin. 

We  will  now  attend  to  the  language  of  the  Con- 
lession  of  Faith  set  forth  by  the  Westminster  Di- 
vines. 

"  The  visible  Church  is  tlic  kingdom  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God^ 
out  of  which  there  is  no  orilinary  possibility  of 
salvation."* 

It  w^ould  be  difficult  to  attach  greater  importance 
to  the  visible  Church  than  is  implied  in  the  above 
passage.  There  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation out  of  this  Church.  If  persons  not  belong- 
ing to  such  Church  be  saved,  it  must  be  in  some 
extraordinary  way,  of  which  we  know  nothing. 
Communion  with  the  visible  Church,  as  far  as  we 
see  or  know,  is  the  only  method  in  which  salvation 
is  to  be  attained.  Such  is  the  express  language 
which  you  yourself  use  in  commenting  on  this  very 
passage.f  Now,  I  humbly  conceive  that  the  or- 
dinary way  of  salvation  is  the  covenanted  way. 
You  surely  will  not  assert  that  the  covenanted  plan 
of  salvation  is  a  plan  which  is  extraordinary  and 
unknown  to  us;  while  there  is  some  other  plan, 
different  from  the  covenanted,  that  is  the  ordinary 
plan  of  salvation.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  your 
Confession  of  Faith  confines  all  covenanted  title  to 
salvation  to  the  members  of  the  visible  Church. 

Bear  with  me,  however,  a  few  moments  longer, 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  2.    Constituiion 
of  the  Associate  Reforinccl  Church  in  North-America,  p.  145,  146, 
t  Continuation  of  l^-.-fiv^^,  p,  44, 


24  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  III. 

"  A  sacrament  is  an  holy  ordinance,  instituted  by 
Christ  m  his  Church,  to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit 
unto  those  that  are  within  the  covenant  of 
GRACE,  the  benefits  of  his  mediation;  and  to  dis- 
tinguish THEM  FROM  THOSE  THAT  ARE  WITHOUT." 

"  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that 
are  out  of  the  visible  Church,  and  so  stran- 
gers FROM    THE  COVENANT  OF  PROMISE,    Until   they 

profess   their   faith  in  Christ,   and   obedience   to 
him."* 

*  Constitution  of  the  rresbytcrlan  Church  in  the  United  States 
Larger  Catechism,  questions  162  and  166.  Constitution  of  tlie  Associate 
Reformed  Church  in  North-America,  p.  372,  373,  375. 

Mark  this  well !  Wc  are  **  out  of  the  visible  Church,  and  so  stran- 
gers from  the  covenant  of  promise,  until  we  profess  our  faith  in  Christ." 
Then  it  is  possible  to  have  faith,  and  yet  be  without  a  covenanted  title 
to  salvation;  for  we  are  first  supposed  to  profess  our  faith  in  Christ; 
and,  upon  the  strength  of  this  profession,  are  placed  within  the  cove- 
nant by  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Faith,  therefore,  does  not,  of  it- 
self, put  us  within  the  covenant,  but  merely  renders  us  fit  subjects  of 
admission. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  language  which  you  employ  on  this  subject. 

You  represent  it  as  the  universal  doctrine  of  Calvinistic  Presbyteri- 
ans, that  all  who  have  sincere  faith  in  Christ  are  in  covenant  with  God, 
whether  members  of  the  visible  Church  or  not ;  in  short,  to  use  your 
own  pointed  phraseology,  even  supposing  them  never  to  have  seen  a 
Church  officer  in  their  lives.f 

Pray,  Sir,  were  th6  Westminster  Divines  Calvinistic  Presbyterians  ? 
They  hold,  as  we  have  seen,  a  very  difTcrent  language ;  telling  us,  in 
so  many  words,  that  all  who  are  out  of  the  visible  Church  are  strangers 
to  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  providing  that  persons  shall  first  have 
faith  in  Christ,  and  profess  that  faith;  after  which  they  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted within  the  covenant  by  the  holy  ordinance  of  baptism.  The 
Westminster  Catechism  is  the  catechism  of  your  own  religious  society ; 
which  society,  I  presume,  you  will,  without  hesiUtion,  acknowledge 
to  be  Calvinistic. 

In  the  chapter  of  your  Confession  which  treats  of  saving  faitli,  it  i? 
not  said  that  faith  plaees  a  man  within  the  pale  of  tlie  covenant  of  grace. 

t  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  58,  59,  60. 


LET.  III.  EXTERNAL  ORDEK.  2fe 

The  position,  that  the  standards  of  Prcsbyterial 
societies  confine  all  covenanted  possibility  of  sal- 

If  it  were  so  suid,  the  only  consequence  would  be,  that  your  relig-jous 
standards  would  be  inconsistent.  The  passages,  from  the  catechism, 
which  I  have  quoted,  are  as  precise  as  lang-uage  can  make  them.  Pro- 
iluce  opposite  passag-es  equally  precise,  and  it  will  certainly  be  impos- 
fcible  to  tell  what  your  religious  standards  mean.  But  such  passages 
you  cannot  produce.  Any  expressions  that  may  ascribe  ^eat  import- 
ance to  faith,  representing  it  as  unitmg  the  soul  to  Christ,  and  giving 
Ml  interest  in  his  favour,  must  be  so  construed  as  to  be  made  consistent; 
with  the  other  parts  of  your  religious  articles,  which  speak  a  language, 
relative  to  the  visible  Church,  so  express  as  to  admit  of  no  qualifica- 
tion whatever.  You  will  recollect,  also,  that  your  society  acknowledges 
no  faith  to  be  true  and  saving  unless  it  contain  within  itself  a  principle 
of  obedience.  It  must  be  supposed,  therefore,  to  lead  men  to  unite 
themselves  with  that  visible  society  where  God  has  deposited  his  cove- 
nant; and,  by  receiving  the  seals  of  such  covenant,  to  acquire  a  legi* 
timate  title  to  its  promises. 

In  page  62  of  the  Continuation  of  your  Letters,  you  represent  sincere 
piety  as  giving  to  all  its  possessors  a  covenanted  title  to  heaven;  and 
this  you  declare  to  be  the  universally  received  Calvinistic  opinion.  Now, 
Sir,  was  there  ever  a  pious  heathen  ?  To  answer  this  question  in  the 
negative,  is  to  consign  the  heathen  world  to  indiscriminate  perdition ; 
for,  surely,  without  piety,  no  man  can  see  God. 

Piety,  you  say,  gives  a  covenanted  title  to  heaven  as  a  matter  of 
course.*  As  then  the  heathens,  according  to  you,-j-  are  without  such 
covenanted  title,  it  follows,  that  heathen  piety  is  a  thing  impossible ; 
and  heathen  piety  being  impossible,  heathen  salvation  must  be  equally 
so.  If,  to  escape  from  this  monstrous  doctrine,  yoTi  admit  that  there 
may  be  piety  among  the  heathen,  you  will  be  directly  at  war  with  your-* 
•self;  for  you  represent  the  heathen  as  destitute  ol;  all  covenanted  title 
to  salvation ;  whereas,  to  have  sincere  piety,  and  to  have  a  covenanted 
title  to  salvation,  you  make  to  be  precisely  the  same  thing. 

Sincere  piety  gives  the  Christian  a  covenanted  title  to  heaven — Since 
piety  gives  the  heathen  a  covenanted  title  to  heaven — Then  the  Christian 
and  the  heathen,  as  to  covenanted  title  to  heaven,  are  precisely  on  a 
footing.     The  question  of  such  title  has  nothing  to  do  with  signs  and 

*  "  The  si?icere  piety,  and,  of  course,  the  covenant  title  to  heaven"  Coa- 
unuation  of  Letters,  p.  62. 

\  **  On  tlie  same  principles  as  to  the  heathen;  that  is,  not  in  virtue  of  any 
covenant  engagement,  or  explicit  prcmis;;',  but  on  the  footing  of  general  un- 
pledged luercy."    Ibid-  p.  ?7. 

4 


26  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IIL 

vation  within  the  pale  of  the  visible  Church,  is 
thus  completely  established;   the  passages  cited 

4>eals.  Piety  is  its  sole  criterion.  This  is  one  alternative.  If  you  do 
not  like  this,  take  the  other.  The  heathen  have  no  covenanted  title  to 
heaven;  which,  by  the  way,  is  your  express  doctrine.*  Then  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  sincere  piety  in  the  heathen  world ;  and,  of 
course,  the  heathen  world  must  indiscrinninately  perish. 

On  one  side  of  the  dilemma  lies  the  total  destruction  of  the  visible 
Church,  and  of  the  covenant  of  grace  as  a  solemn  transaction,  distin- 
guished by  appropriate  seals  ;  on  the  other  lies  tlie  terrific  sentence — 
**  none  can  be  saved  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ,  however  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature."f 

Again — Can  any  thing  be  more  absurd  than  to  represent  piety  as 
placing  a  man,  of  itself^  within  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  The  covenant 
of  grace  is  a  solemn  transaction,  distinguished  bf  characteristic  signs 
and  seals.  To  be  within  these  signs  and  seals,  is  to  be  within  the  cove- 
nant ;  to  be  without  them,  is  to  be  without  the  covenant.  Was  any  per- 
son within  the  Abrahamic  dispensation  of  the  covenant  without  circum- 
cision ?  Surely  n»t.  •'  This  is  my  covenant — Every  man  child  among 
5'ou  shall  be  circumcised.  And  the  uncircumcised  man  child  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people."^:  To  be  circumcised  was  to  be  put  within  the 
Abrahamic  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Baptism  having  suc- 
ceeded circumcision  as  the  visible  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  is 
by  baptism  that  we  are  placed  within  the  pale  of  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion of  that  covenant.  On  all  this  subject,  your  religious  standards 
hold  the  exact  language  which  I  have  just  been  using.  What,  then, 
becomes  of  your  assertion,  that  every  person  of  sincere  piety  is,  simply 
by  virtue  of  his  piety,  Virithin  the  pale  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is 
us  inconsistent  with  your  religious  standards  as  one  thing  can  be  with 
anotlier ;  and  it  is  not  more  inconsistent  with  your  religious  standards 
than  with  common  sense. 

You  remark,  that  "  the  seals  of  the  covenant  do  not  form  the  cove- 
nant itself;  the  seal  on  a  bond  not  being  itself  the  contract,  but  only 
the  evidence  of  it."(|  The  true  question  is,  whether  a  person  can  be 
said  to  be  within  the  covenant  until  he  is  within  its  seals.  The  very 
purpose  of  seals  is  to  discriminate  a  covenant  transaction  from  that 
which  is  not  a  covenant  transaction;  to  determine  who  are  witliiii  the 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  37. 

f  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Churcli  in  the  United  States.    L<»rge" 
Catecliisra,  <iut:3tion  60. 
i  Genesis  xvii.  in,  14. 
'I  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  51» 


LET.  in-  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  27 

being  of  so  very  marked  a  character  as  to  leave 
no  room  for  evasion. 


covenant,  and  who  are  not.  If  this  be  not  the  purpose  of  seals,  wha\ 
is  their  purpose  ?  And  if  persons  may  be  completely  within  a  covenant, 
independently  of  the  appropriate  seals  of  that  covenant,  what  end  are 
seals  to  answer  ? 

"  The  seal  on  a  bond  is  not  itself  the  contract,  but  only  the  evidence 
of  it"  True— But  what  is  it  that  converts  an  unmeaning  piece  of  writ- 
ing  into  a  covenant  binding  upon  the  parties  ?  It  is  the  signing  and 
sealing.  The  signing  and  sealing  are  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
the  covenant.  Until  signed  and  sealed,  the  paper  has  no  obligatory 
force. 

The  covenant  you  represent  as  a  mere  act  of  the  mind.  But  publico* 
tion  is  essential  to  the  very  idea  of  a  covenant.  It  is  an  abuse  of  lan- 
guage to  talk  of  a  covenant  that  is  confined  to  the  mind  of  the  party. 
If  this  language  is  ever  used,  it  can  only  be  in  the  way  of  figurative 
allusion.  Covenant,  it  is  true,  supposes  an  act  of  the  mind :  such  act 
is  one  essential  part;  but  of  itself  it  can  never  amount  to  a  covenant, 
And  although  the  covenanting  transaction,  with  its  signs  and  seals,  is 
not  the  act  of  the  mind,  abstractedly  considered,-  yet  it  is  the  act  of  the 
mind  embodied,  and  rendered  visible.  Nothing,  indeed,  but  an  assent  of 
the  mind,  made  known  by  the  appropriate  solemnities  of  publication, 
is  ever  entitled  to  the  name  of  a  covenant. 

Here,  Sir,  lies  the  source  of  all  the  error  into  which  you  run  on  this 
subject.  Faith  you  make  every  thing.  The  moment  a  man  has  faith, 
he  is  ascertained  to  be  of  the  elect ;  and  once  an  elect  person,  always 
an  elect  person,  is  the  Calvinistic  rule.  Well,  if  we  are  within  the 
.decree  of  election,  we  must  have  the  highest  title  to  heaven  that  God 
can  possibly  bestow.  Thus  the  absurd  doctrine  of  unconditional  elec- 
tion and  irresistible  grace  leads  the  Calvinist  to  talk  in  a  most  contra- 
dictory manner;  undervaluing  all  visible  institutions,  and  providing 
some  secret  method  of  entering  into  covenant  with  God. 

The  only  way.  Sir,  in  which  you  can  be  reconciled,  on  this  point, 
with  your  standards,  is  by  supposing  it  to  be  your  opinion  that  Church 
membership  is  essential  to  faith ;  in  other  words,  that  a  man  cannot 
have  faith  without  arriving  at  it  through  the  gate  of  external  order. 
You  say  that  faith  gives  a  covenanted  title  to  salvation — Your  standards 
say  that  none  but  the  members  of  the  Church  have  such  covenanted 
title.  Unless,  therefore,  you  suppose  tliere  can  be  no  faith  without 
Church  membership,  you  contradict  your  religious  articles.  Dut  this 
doctrine  would  involve  you  in  another  difficulty;  for,  to  make  fuith  ne- 
cessarily dependent  on  outward  in«;titutions,  is  to  represent  those  instj- 


28  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IIL 

Let  mc  now  remind  you  of  the  language  which 
is  held  by  Presbyterian  authors  on  this  subject. 

My  first  quotation  shall  be  from  the  Christian's 
Magazine.  Speaking  of  the  visible  Church,  Dr. 
Mason  says,  "  all  the  ordinances  are  given  to  it- 
all  the  promises  are  made  to  it."^ 

The  next  authority  to  which  I  would  refer  you 
is  that  of  the  late  learned  President  of  the  college 
of  New-Jersey.  In  his  Discourse  on  Baptism,  Dr. 
Smith  constantly  represents  the  visible  Church  as 
that  household  of  God  to  which  is  committed  the 
covenant  of  grace,  with  all  its  promises  and  bles- 
sings.t  Take  a  single  passage — "  Between  the 
baptized  and  unbaptized  infant,  dying  in  infancy, 
there  is  this  difference,  that,  to  the  one,  the  inherit- 
ance of  eternal  life  is  conveyed  by  covenant  from 
God,  under  his  appointed  seal;  the  other  is  left  to 
his  free,  indeed,  but  uncovenanted  mercy.J" 

Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  the  language 
repeatedly  used  in  your  own  Letters. 

The  visible  Church  is  "  that  household  of  God 
to  which  his  gracious  promises  and  his  life-giving 
spirit  are  vouchsafed."^  Here,  Sir,  you  represent 
the  promises  of  the  Gospel  as  confined  to  the  vi- 
sible Church.     Such  is,  unquestionably,  the  fair 


"tutlons  as  constituting^  the  completion  of  the  Christian  character.  It 
is,  too,  to  run  directly  ap^ainst  the  cardinal  principles  of  Calvinism. 
Besides,  your  religious  articles  suppose  a  man  to  have  faith  before  he 
is  admitted  into  the  Church;  for  they  make  such  faith  the  very  ground 
of  his  admission. 

*  Vol.  i.  p.  156. 

•f  See  Discourse  on  Baptism  tliFOUghout.  %  Ibid.  p.  34 

$  Letters,  p.  342. 


LET.  III.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  29 

construction;  especially  as  the  conclusion  which 
you  draw,  from  tlic  fact  of  the  gracious  promises 
of  God  and  his  life-giving  spirit  being  vouchsafed 
to  the  Church,  is,  that  more  virtue  and  holiness 
will  ever  be  found  within  thon  without  her  pale. 
If  the  promises  of  the  Gospel  arc  not  particularly 
given  to  the  visible  Church,  your  mode  of  expres- 
sion is  very  strange,  and  your  reasoning  altogether 
unintelligible. 

Again — You  represent  the  existence  of  unaffect- 
ed piety  out  of  the  visible  Church  as  a  difficulty 
of  no  easy  solution;*  and  you  expressly  declare, 
that  if  mercy  is  extended  to  any  who  are  not  mem- 
bers of  that  Church,  it  must  be  in  some  extraor- 
dinary and  unknown  way.f  Now,  the  covenanted 
way  is  surely  the  ordinary  way  in  which  God  dis- 
penses mercy.  To  say,  then,  that  if  mercy  is  ex- 
tended to  persons  out  of  the  visible  Church,  it 
must  be  in  some  extraordinary  mode,  is  to  say  that 
none  but  the  members  of  that  Church  have  a  co- 
venanted title  to  salvation. 

Let  this  subject  be  presented  in  another  point 
of  view. 

It  is  the  express  doctrine  of  Presbyterial  authors, 
and  of  Presbyterial  standards,  that  remission  of 
sin  is  to  be  obtained  only  by  communion  with  the 
visible  Church. 

Mark  the  strong  language  of  Calvin :  "  Forgive- 
ness of  sins  is  a  benefit  so  proper  to  the  Chi^rch. 

*  Letters,  p.  344. 

f  Coutinuatien  of  Letters,  p.  44. 


56  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  Ill, 

that  we  cannot  otherwise  enjoy  it,  but  if  we  abide 
in  the  communion  thereof.  It  is  distributed  unto 
us  by  the  ministers  and  pastors,  either  by  preach- 
ing the  Gospel,  or  by  ministering  of  the  sacra- 
ments. Wherefore  let  every  one  of  us  think  this 
to  be  his  duty,  no  where  else  to  seek  forgiveness 
of  sins,  than  where  the  Lord  hath  left  it."* 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Enghsh  congre- 
gation at  Geneva,  treating  of  the  visible  Church, 
has  these  words — "  Wherein  standeth  only  remis- 
sion of  sin. "t  This  confession,  let  it  be  recollect- 
ed, was  received  and  approved  by  the  Church  of 
Scotland. 

W^e  will  now  refer  to  the  language  of  your  own 
Confession  of  Faith,  as  drawn  up  by  the  West- 
minster Divines.  "  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  King  and 
Head  of  his  Church,  hath  therein  appointed  a  go- 
vernment in  the  hand  of  Church  officers,  distinct 
from  the  civil  magistrate.  To  these  officers  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed,  by 
virtue  whereof  they  have  power  respectively  to 
retain  and  remit  sins ;  to  shut  that  kingdom  against 
the  impenitent,  both  by  the  word  and  censures ; 
and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sinners,  by  the  mi- 
nistry of  the  Gospel,  and  by  absolution  from  cen- 
sures, as  occasion  shall  require."}: 

The  language  used  by  Presbyterial  societies,  in 
<^xcommunicating  unworthy  members,  and  in  re- 


•  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  i.  sect.  32. 

I  The  Confession  of  Faith  used  in  tlie  English  congreg-atiou  at  Gc- 
iieva;  received  and  approved  by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  article  iv. 
'.    Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxx.  sert.  1,  ? 


JLET.  III.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  3i 

storing  them  upon  repentance,  shows,  in  a  very 
striking  manner,  the  vakie  which  they  attach  to 
the  communion  of  the  visible  Church.  "  Excom- 
munication is  the  judicial  excision  of  an  offender 
from  the  visible  Church  of  Christ,  and  a  pronounc- 
ing him  to  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan."* 

The  same  doctrine  is  laid  down  in  the  standards, 
of  the  religious  society  to  which  you  belong.f 

The  form  of  excommunication  used  by  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  in  North-America  con- 
cludes with  the  following  expressions — "  Therefore 
we  did,  and  hereby  do,  in  the  name,  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  actually  excom- 
municate the  said  A.  B.  casting  him  out  of  the 
communion  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  deUv  er- 
ing  him  unto  Satan,  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh ; 
that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."t 

The  form  of  restoration  in  use  in  the  religious 
society  to  which  you  belong,  is  in  these  words — 
"  I  do  receive  you  into  the  communion  of  the 
Church,  that  you  may  be  a  partaker  of  all  the  be 
nefits  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  your  eternal  salvation.^^^ 

It  is,  then,  the  Presbyterial  doctrine  that  pardon 
is  to  be  obtained  only  in  the  visible  Church  ;||  that 

'^  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in 
■North-America,  p.  525. 

I  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxx.  sect.  3.  Directory  for 
Worship,  chap.  x. 

I  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in 
JJ^onh-America,  p.  580. 

§  Directory  for  Worphip,  chap.  x.  sect.  8. 

II  This  is  laid  down  generally.  It  is  not  meant  to  say  that  pardon  and 
salvation  are  represented  hv  Prcsbvteriaiis  as  impossible  out  of  the  vi- 


52  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  III. 

the  officers  of  that  Church  have  power  to  remit 
and  retain  sins,  to  open  and  shut  the  kin2;dom  of 
heaven;  and  that  the  excommunication  of  an  of- 
fender is  a  formal  delivery  of  him  to  Satan. 

We  see  now  the  precise  degree  of  importance 
which  is  attached  by  your  society  to  Prcsbyterial 
ordination.  As  the  visible  Church  is  made  to  rest 
upon  Presbyterial  ordination,  the  value  which  is 
given  to  the  one,  must,  of  course,  be  given  to  the 
other.  Now  it  is  only  in  the  visible  Church,  ac- 
cording to  the  standards  of  your  society,  that  re- 
mission of  sin  can  be  obtained,  or.  that  there  is 
any  covenanted  title  to  salvation.  Pardon  and  sal- 
vation, then,  are  secured  by  covenant  to  such 
societies  as  are  founded  on  Presbyterial  ordina 
tion,  and  to  such  only. 

In  perfect  consistency  with  these  principles,  Dr. 
M'Leod  expresses  himself  in  the  following  very 
pointed  language:  ^'  A  person  w^ho  is  not  ordained 
to  office  by  a  Presbytery,  has  no  right  to  be  re- 
ceived as  a  minister  of  Christ:  His  administration 
of  ordinances  is  invalid:  No  divine  blessing  is 
promised  upon  his  la])ours:  It  is  rebellion  against 
the  Head  of  the  Church  to  support  him  in  his  pre- 
tensions :  Christ  has  excluded  him  in  his  provi- 
dence from  admission  through  the  ordinary  door; 
and  if  he  has  no  evidence  of  miraculous  power  to 

i.iblc  Church,  but  merely  that  they  state  it  as  the  general  rule  of  thr 
divine  economy,  that  pardon  is  dispensed,  and  salvation  bestowed  only 
through  the  medium  of  that  Church.  This  is  also  the  Episcopal  doc- 
trine, r  is  the  obvious  doctrine  of  Scripture.  Greater  stress  no  Pro- 
testant has  ever  laid  upon  communion  with  the  visible  Church  than  is 
laid  upon  it  in  the  standards  of  Presbyterial  societies 


♦  ET.  111.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  3S 

testify  his  extraordinary  mission,  he  is  an  impos- 
tor."* 

Is  it  possible,  Sir,  to  imai^ine  claims  more  ex- 
clusive than  those  which  arc  set  up  by  Presbyte- 
lial  authors,  and  by  the  standards  of  Presbyterial 
associations? 

You  tell  us,  it  is  true,  that  wherever  certain  in- 
ternal qualifications  are  to  be  found,  there  the  vi- 
sible Church  is  to  be  found.  But  this  is  absurd. 
X  VISIBLE  Church  distinguished  by  invisible 
marks!  If  internal  qualifications  will  constitute  a 
Church,  the  Church  may  exist  without  either  mi- 
nistry or  ordinances.  The  standards  of  your  so- 
ciety are  perfectly  correct  on  this  subject.  They 
make  the  Church  a  visible  society:  they  represent 
the  ministry  and  ordinances  as  essential  to  its  ex- 
istence. In  talking  of  a  Church  made  up  of  inter- 
nal qualifications,  you  are  directly  at  war  with 
Scripture,  with  the  standards  of  your  society,  and 
with  common  sense. 

But  you  have  a  way  of  presenting  this  part  of 
the  subject  which  it  is  necessary  particularly  to 
consider.  You  make  no  scruple  in  admitting  the 
validity  of  Episcopal  ordination;  and  this  you 
never  fail  to  plead  in  proof  of  your  great  liberality. 
But  let  us  place  the  subject  in  its  true  point  of 
light.  You  admit  the  validity  of  our  mode  of  or- 
dination. But  upon  what  ground  do  you  admit  it? 
Simply  on  the  ground  that  it  is  in  fact  Presbyte- 
HivL.     As  far  as  Presbyterianism  extends,  valid. 

*   3''irrlesif»stira]  Catechism,  p.  V^,  ,91^. 


.i4  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  Ill, 

ordination  extends:  the  moment  Presbyterianism 
ceases,  valid  ordination  ceases.  Thus  you  say  ex- 
pressly— "  It  is  only  so  far  as  any  succession  flows 
through  the  line  of  Presbyters^  that  it  is  either  re- 
gular or  valid.  It  is  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery  that  constitutes  a  scriptural  ordina- 
tion; and  it  is  because  Episcopal  Bishops  are 
Presbyters,  and  assisted  in  all  ordinations  by  other 
Presbyters,  that  we  consider  their  ordaining  acts, 
on  the  principles  of  Scripture  and  primitive  usage, 
as  vaKd."* 

No  clerical  succession  is  regular  except  that 
which  flows  through  the  line  of  Presbyters.  It  is 
only  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presby- 
tery that  a  scriptural  ordination  can  be  performed. 
Ordination  in  the  Episcopal  Church  is  valid  only 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  performed  by  a  Presbyter, 
with  the  assistance  of  his  fellow  Presbyters.  And 
it  is  in  this  view  of  the  subject  alone  that  you 
regard  ordinances  Episcopally  administered  as  of 
any  significance.  "  It  is  improper  to  countenance 
the  usurpations  of  prelacy,  or  the  irregularities  of 
independency;  but  as  the  ministry  is  essentially 
Presbyterian,  upon  this  principle  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity for  re-ordaining  or  re-baptizing  any  who 
have  had  these  ordinances  in  the  communion  of 
the  Independent  or  Episcopal  churches."t 

This,  Sir,  is  not  less  your  doctrine  than  the 
doctrine  of  Dr.  M'Leod;  indeed  it  is,  and  ever 
has  been  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Presby- 

'  Letters,  p.  347.  f  Ecclesiastical  Catcclusin,  p.  31 


LET.  HI.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  36 

terial  association.  The  Westminster  Divines  lay 
it  down  in  the  most  express  terms;  and  in  that 
part  of  the  standards  of  your  society  which  pre- 
scribes the  mode  of  ordination,  the  ground  is  un- 
equivocally taken  of  apostolic  example*  In  fact, 
so  rigidly  is  the  principle  of  ordination  by  a  Pres- 
bytery insisted  upon  among  you^  that  you  will  not 
admit  the  validity  of  an  ordination  performed  by 
a  sinfrle  clergyman,  on  any  other  ground  than  that 
which  may  be  furnished  by  a  case  of  necessity. 
For  this,  too,  no  passage  from  your  standards  can 
be  adduced.  You  merely  throw  out  the  idea  as 
one,  which,  you  suppose,  if  the  case  should  occur, 
would  receive  the  sanction  of  your  brethren.t 

*  Form  of  Government,  chap.  xiv.  sect.  12. 

f  "  Althoug-h  Presbyterians,  wishing  to  conform  as  perfectly  as  pos 
sible  to  scriptural  example,  require  a  plurality  of  ministers  to  be  pre- 
sent, and  to  lay  on  their  hands  in  ordination ;  yet  /  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  any  Presbyterian  minister  or  church  would  consider  an  or- 
dination performed,  in  a  case  of  necessity ^  by  a  single  Presbyter,  as 
null  and  void."t 

All  this  is  extremely  guarded.  We  may  venture,  therefore,  to  con- 
clude that  no  case  has  ever  occurred  in  which  your  society  hps  sanc- 
tioned, either  expressly  or  impliedly,  the  principle  that  ordination  may 
be  performed  by  a  single  Presbyter.  The  language  of  Presbyterian 
standards  on  this  point  is  free  from  all  ambiguity.  "  The  power  of 
ordination  is  in  a  Presbytery."  "  The  act  of  ordination  is  the  act  of  a 
Presbytery."  Now  a  Presbytery  consists  of  a  number  of  members. 
Ordination,  of  course,  cannot  be  performed  by  a  single  clergyman. 
Indeed,  in  placing  the  thing  upon  the  ground  of  necessity,  you  plainly 
mark  it  as  a  departure  from  all  the  laws  of  Scripture,  and  of  your  re- 
ligious society.  Nor  do  you  venture  to  say  that  the  irregularity  in 
question  would  be  cured  even  by  the  necessity  of  the  case ;  you  have 
only  no  reason  to  think  otherwise.  This  is  very  cautious  indeed.  In  a 
word,  it  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Presbyterianism,  thai  ordina- 
tfion  can  be  validly  performed  only  by  a  plurality  of  Presbyters — a  dcr- 

-  Ccntinnation  of  Letters,  p.  8P. 


36  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  III. 

''  If  any  preceding  or  subsequent  passage  in  our 
public  standards  had  asserted,  or  even  intimated, 
that  no  minister  is  lawfully  ordained  but  one  who 
has  been  set  apart  cxacthj  in  our  mode^  there  would 
be  some  pretext  for  this  cavil. ''^' 

It  might  be  difficult  to  ascertain  the  precise  idea 
which  you  mean  to  convey  in  this  passage.  The 
w^ords,  "  cxacibj  in,  our  mode^'^''  are  carefully  mark- 
ed in  italics.  Well,  Sir,  if  you  do  not  represent 
it  as  essential  to  the  validity  of  ordination  that  it 
be  performed  exactly  in  the  Presbyterial  mode,  you 
at  least  require  that  it  be  performed  subsiantially 
in  that  mode.  Unless,  then,  ordination  be  sub- 
stantially Presbyterial,  it  is  good  for  nothing.  If 
a  religious  society  happen  to  possess  this  mode  of 
ordination,  it  may  be  admitted  to  be  a  Church : 


trine,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  which  leaves  not,  when  pursued  to  its 
legitimate  consequences,  a  single  Clu'istian  Church  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth. 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  44. 

"  Exactly  in  our  mode"  Why  did  you  not  leave  out  tiie  word  "  r.v- 
ACTLT  ?'*  There  may  be  very  many  circumstances  in  an  ordination  no 
way  essential  to  its  validity.  These  non-essentials  you  have  here  in 
view ;  but  your  people  may  be  led  to  suppose  that  some  very  generous 
idea  is  concealed  under  the  words.  Now,  Sir,  if  1  were  disposed  to 
imitate  you  on  this  occasion,  I  would  say  tiiat  we  do  not  liold  it  to  be 
neceasary  to  the  validity  of  ordination  that  it  be  performed  exactly 
in  our  mode — It  is  quite  sufficient  that  the  mode  be  substantially  Epis- 
copal. 

Will  you  say  that  the  standards  of  )-our  society  neither  assert  nor  in- 
timate that  a  clergymun  is  not  lawfully  ordained  unless  set  apart  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  ?  How  unworthy,  then,  of  a 
candid  disputant,  to  attempt  to  evade  the  true  state  of  the  fact,  by 
having  recourse  to  a  form  of  expression,  to  which  it  is  difficult  for  your 
readers  to  tell  what  precise  idea  you  intend  should  be  annexed ' 


LET.  III.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  31 

if  not,  its  pretended  clergymen  are  impostors,  and 
they  who  attend  upon  then*  ministrations  are  guihy 
of  rebellion  a,i2;ainst  God.  True — Episcopal  ordi- 
nation is  valid;  but  it  is  Presbyterianism  that 
makes  it  so.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  corruption 
about  it;  but  it  has,  neverthelc^ss,  a  Presbyterian 
tincture;  just  enough  of  that  tincture  to  preserve 
it  from  absolute  putridity.  Let  it  be  remembered, 
too,  that  in  admitting  the  validity  of  our  mode  of 
ordination,  you  act  under  the  impulse  of  an  im- 
perious principle  of  necessity.  You  are  seceders 
from  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  founders  of  your 
society  v*^ere  ordained  by  Bishops.  If,  then,  Epis- 
copal ordination  be  a  nullity,  you  have  no  minis- 
ters, and,  of  course,  no  ordinances.  In  fact,  you 
are  obliged  to  take  the  validity  of  our  ordination 
for  granted;  it  being  the  foundation  on  which  your 
whole  fabrick  rests.  Episcopacy  has  always  been 
branded  by  your  society  as  antichristian.  The 
Westminster  Divines,  and  the  General  Assembly 
of  Scotland,  denounced  it  as  a  popish  and  wicked 
hierarchy.  By  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in 
this  country  the  epithets  iinscriptural  and  antichris- 
tian, are,  without  ceremony,  applied  to  it.  You 
fail  not  to  express  yourself  very  freely  on  the  sub- 
ject; charging  our  venerable  Church  with  having 
departed  widely  from  the  primitive  model;  and 
representing  the  imparity  of  her  ministry  as  the 
corrupt  result  of  ecclesiastical  intrigue  and  ambi- 
tion. But  still  you  are  all  under  the  hard  neces- 
sity of  recognizing  the  validity  of  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation; having  no  other  method  of  saving  your- 


53  EXTERNAL  ORDEK.  LET.  Ill, 

selves  from  destruction.  And  for  the  pure  purpose 
of  self  j)resorvation  you  admit  us  to  be  a  Church; 
a  very  corrupt  one,  truly,  but  still  a  Church.  We, 
unfortunately,  are  not  able  to  return  the  compli- 
mcnt.  Well — you  represent  us  as  a  corrupt  Church ; 
and  \\c  hold  you  to  be  schismatics;  utterly  deny- 
ing that  you  have  either  ministry  or  ordinances. 

So  far  from  admitting  Episcopal  ordination,  as 
rontradistin^uished  from  Presbyterial^  to  be  valid, 
you  brand  it  as  an  act  of  rebellion  against  God. 
Now,  the  standards  of  our  Church  regard  the  Bi- 
shop as  a  superior  officer,  who  alone  conveys  the 
ministerial  authority:  the  Presbyters  being  associ- 
ated with  him  merely  to  guard  the  exercise  of  the 
power,  and  on  no  other  ground  than  that  of  eccle- 
siastical usage.  It  is  the  express  doctrine  of  our 
Church  that  the  Bishop  ordains  by  virtue  of  his 
Apostolic  character.  All  this  you  exclaim  against 
as  corrupt  and  monstrous.  Thus,  viewed  with  a 
Presbyterial  eye,  our  clergymen  are  ministers  of 
Christ;  viewed  with  an  Episcopal  eye,  they  are 
presumptuous  intruders  into  the  vineyard  of  the 
Lord.  By  this  mode  of  double  construction,  you 
save  yourselves  from  all  harm;  while  you  consign 
us  over  as  rebels  and  apostates. 

Do  you  bring  such  conduct,  Sir,  in  proof  of  the 
very  low  nature  of  your  pretensions  ? 

I  appeal  to  every  man  of  candour  whether  claims 
more  exclusive  could  possibly  be  set  up. 

Presbyterianism  is  the  source  from  which  all 
valid  administration  of  divine  ordinances  is  deriv- 
ed.   Where  only  a  partial  departure  from  the  Pres- 


LET.  III.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  ^9 

byterial  mode  of  ordination  has  taken  place,  the 
clerical  office  is  not  absolutely  lost;  it  not  being 
necessary  that  such  mode  be  exactly  followed.  \L^ 
under  such  circumstances,  the  ordination  be  valid, 
it  derives  its  validity  from  being  suhstantially  Pres- 
byterial.  Where  the  departure  from  Presbyterian- 
ism  is  substantial^  the  clerical  office  is  lost;  the 
Church  is  lost;  and  there  is  nothing  to  rely  upon 
but  uncovenanted  mercy. 

But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  that,  in  the 
business  of  unchurching,  you  go  infinitely  beyond 
those  against  whom  you  direct  so  much  virulent 
declamation. 

1.  You  unchurch  the  Quakers. 

The  ministry  and  ordinances  you  make  essen- 
tial; and  the  Quakers  have  neither  ministry  nor 
ordinances.  You  must  either  say,  then,  that  the 
Quaker  association  is  not  entitled  to  the  name  of 
Church,  or  you  must  admit  that  the  Church  may 
exist  without  either  ministry  or  ordinances ;  which 
will  be  directly  to  contradict  the  Presbyterial  stand- 
ards, and  to  make  the  Christian  Church,  jiiore- 
over,  an  invisible  society. 

When  pressed  vv^ith  the  question,  whether  you 
acknowledge  the  Quakers  to  be  a  Church,  you 
display  a  great  want  of  manly  candour;  in  fact, 
you  seem  afraid  of  making  any  reply.  The  ques- 
tion, you  tell  us,  is  not  a  practical  one  ;*  seeing 
the  Quakers  do  not  pretend  to  have  either  ministry 

*  Continuation  of  letters,  p.  56. 


-iO  KXTERiXAL  OKDEK.  LET.  IT!- 

or  sacrauicnls.  Hut  lliey  clniin  to  be  ii  true  Church 
of  Christ :  they  claim  to  be  in  a  state  of  covenant 
Mdth  God.  Will  vou  admit  them  to  be  a  true  visi- 
ble Chinch?  You  have  not  ventured  to  say  so;* 
imcandidly  evading  the  question  In'  a  mere  play 
upon  words.  J3csides,  your  religious  articles,  and 
your  distinguished  writers,  make  a  ministry  so  es- 
sential, that  the  Church  cannot  possibly  exist  with- 
out it.  Will  you  admit  tlie  Quakers  to  be  in  a  state 
of  covenant?  The  standards  of  your  society  con- 
fine all  covenanted  title  to  salvation  to  the  visible 
Church.  "  Out  of  the  visible  Cliurch,  and  so  stran- 
gers from  the  covenant  of  promise,^^  Such  also  is 
the  current  language  of  Prcsbyterial  authors. 

Upon  what  principle,  then,  do  you  inveiglj 
against  us  for  refusing  to  you  what  you  make  no 
scruple  of  refusing  to  the  Quakers?  Cease  to 
complain  of  our  want  of  liberality,  while  you  treat 
others  precisely  as  we  treat  you.f 


*  Conlinuation  of  Tetters,  p.  56. 

T  Very  crude  opinions  are  entertained  by  many  on  the  hackneyed  sub- 
ject of  liberality;  the  criterion  of  which  is  made  to  consist  in  lowering 
the  standard  both  of  doctrine  and  order  as  much  as  possible;  in  think- 
ing well  of  all  kinds  of  reli,c^ious  opinions  and  ceremonies.  But  if  we 
have  a  divine  system  for  our  .government,  it  is  worse  than  absurd  to  let 
a  pretended  liberality  lead  us  in  any  way  to  surrender  its  claims.  True 
liberality  of  mind  v/ill  show  itself  in  maintaining*  our  opinions  with  mo- 
desty, and  in  a  perfect  willingness  that  Christians  of  other  denomina- 
tions should  possess  the  same  freedom  of  thoug-ht  and  speech  with 
ourselves.  It  will  show  itself  in  charitable  allowance  for  the  errors 
of  our  fellow  men  ;  in  supposine^  that  error  may  be  often  combined  with 
sincere  piety.  But  I  am  obliged  to  go  over  tlic  points  discusscil  in  this 
letter,  in  order  to  prove  the  injustice  and  inconsistency  of  your  treat- 
ment of  Episcopalians,  even  upon  the  ground  of  your  own  opinions 
and  principles. 


LET.   HI.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  41 

2.  Yoii  excommiinicate  the  whole  Greek  Church, 


coutaiiiitii^  more  members  than  the  Protestant 
work!  united. 

No  ordination  is  admitted  hy  your  religious  so- 
ciety to  be  valid  unless  performed  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  It  is  not  sufficient 
that  a  single  clergyma..  mpose  hands.  The 
power,  according  to  the  Westminster  Divines,  is 
in  a  Presbytery ;  and  you  expressly  tell  us  that  or- 
dination by  a  single  clergyman  could  be  recogniz- 
ed as  valid  only  in  a  case  of  necessity.*  Now, 
ordination,  in  the  Greek  Church,  has  ever  been 
performed  by  the  iJibliop  alone ;  and  as  necessity 
cannot  possibly  be  pleaded  for  this,  it  follows,  that 
ordination,  as  practised  in  the  Greek  Church,  is 
unscriptural  and  void.  Thus,  ordination  being 
essential  to  the  ministry,  and  ordination,  as  prac- 
tised in  the  Greek  Church,  being  entirely  un- 
authorized, it  follows,  that  that  Church  has  no 
ministry.  But  the  ministry,  according  to  the  Pres- 
byterial  doctrine,  enters  into  the  very  being  of  the 
Church.  Thus,  that  large  body  of  Christians^ 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Greek  Church,  is  plac- 
ed, by  you^  in  a  state  of  complete  excommunica- 
tion. 

3.  The  Deacons  of  our  Church  are  ordained  by 
the  Bishop  alone.  Of  course  they  have  no  autho- 
rity to  act  in  the  name  of  Christ.  Ordinances  ad- 
ministered by  them  are  invalid ;  the  Divine  bles- 
sing not  being  promised  upon  their  labours.     In 

"'  Cnntlnnation  of  Lettcir.,  d.  89. 


4gl  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  III. 

short,  Episcopal  Deacons  are  impostors,  and  all 
who  wait  upon  their  ministratioa  are  guilty  of  re- 
bellion against  God.* 

4.  The  practice  of  Presbyters  imposing  hands 
with  the  Bishop  in  ordination  was  not  introduced 
into  the  Latin  Church  until  the  fourth  century. 
We  can  point  out  the  very  Council  by  which  the 
canon,  enjoining  such  practice,  was  passed.f  Your 
doctrine,  then,  that  ordination  can  be  performed 
only   by  a   Presbytery,   completely  destroys  the 
Latin  not  less  than  the  Greek  Church;  thus  un- 
churching, in  fact,  the  whole  Christian  world.     If 
the  ordinations,  performed  in  the  Latin  Churchy 
in  the  fourth  century,  were  invalid,  all  subsequent 
ordinations,  being  grounded  on  them,   must,   of 
course,  be  invalid  also.     Thus,  Sir,  in  your  rigid 
adherence  to  Presbyterial  ordination,   you  have 
not  left  a  Christian  Church  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth. t 

But,  perhaps,  you  will  deny  the  fact,  that  ordi- 
nation in  the  Western  Church  was  performed,  un- 
til the  fourth  century,  by  the  Bishop  alone.  The 
fact  is  completely  proved  by  the  most  authentic 
evidence.  But  lay  it  out  of  the  question — still, 
you  represent  our  Deacons,  and  the  Deacons  of 


'  INI'Lcod's  Ecelesiastical  Catechism,  p.  29,  30. 

f  Fourth  Council  of  Carthag-e. 

i  There  are,  it  is  true,  some  Christian  societies  which  do  not  fall  un- 
der the  head  either  of  the  Latin  or  of  the  Greek  Church.  I  am  not  ahle 
to  ascertain,  at  present,  whether  the  statement,  made  above,  relative 
to  the  practice  of  ordination  in  the  Greek  Church,  and  in  the  Latin 
until  the  Fourth  Council  of  Carthage,  applies  to  them  also.  The 
4rong  probability,  however,  certainly  is,  that  it  does. 


LET.  in.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  43 

the  Romish  Church,  as  destilule  of  all  clerical 
power;  and  you  completely  unchurch  the  Quakers, 
and  the  whole  Greek  Church. 

Mark,  now,  Sir,  the  very  rigid  character  of  the 
principle  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  your  reli- 
gious society !  Sooner  than  yield  the  point  that  a 
plurality  of  clergymen  is  necessary  to  constitute  a 
scriptural  ordination,  you  unchurch  a  denomina- 
tion comprehending  more  members  than  all  the 
Christian  societies  in  Europe,  Episcopal  and  non- 
Episcopal,  put  together. 

It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  evade  this  plain  state- 
ment of  facts.  Your  society  expressly  says  that 
there  can  be  no  Church  without  a  ministry,  and 
that  there  can  be  no  ministry  w  ithout  Presbyterial 
ordination ;  it  in  no  place  recognizes  the  validity 
of  ordination  by  a  single  clergyman ;  and  you  tell 
us  that  such  ordination  would  not  be  received  as 
valid,  unless  the  ground  of  necessity  could  be 
fairly  taken.  In  the  Greek  Church,  ordination  is 
alw^ays  performed  by  a  single  clergyman;  and  no 
plea  of  necessity  can  possibly  be  set  up.  It  fol- 
lows, irresistibly,  that  the  Greek  Christians  have 
no  ministry,  and,  of  course,  cannot  be  considered 
as  in  a  Church  state. 

In  the  business  of  unchurching,  then,  you  go 
very  far  beyond  your  opponents.  It  is  but  a  small 
portion  of  the  Christian  world  that  is  destitute  of 
Episcopal  ordination;  in  fact,  that  mode  of  ordi- 
nation prevailed  universally  until  the  time  of  the 
reformation ;  and  Presbyterians  now  constitute  the 
inferior  number  even  among  Protestants, 


(    4i    ) 

LETTER  IV. 
EXTERJ>rAL  ORDEE. 

Sir, 

J-iET  ns  now  endeavour  to  ascertain  how  far 
Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  agree,  and  how 
far  they  differ,  on  the  subject  of  the  visible 
Church. 

1.  They  agree  that  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles 
instituted  a  visible  Church,  of  which  they  com- 
manded all  men  to  become  members;  and  that 
the  promises  of  the  Gospel  are  exchisively  made 
to  this  Church;  in  other  words,  that  out  of  this 
Church  there  is  no  covenanted  title  to  salvation.* 

2.  They  agree  that  there  is  a  divinely  instituted 
ministry  in  the  visible  Church,  which  is  essential 
to  its  existence. 

3.  They  agree  that  no  person  can  be  considered 
as  invested  with  the  clerical  character  until  regu- 
larly set  apart  by  an  outward  and  visible  ordina- 
tion. 

Now,  Sir,  at  what  conclusion  have  we  airived? 


*  We  are  very  far  from  saying-  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  salva 
tion  out  of  the  visible  Church.  God  forbid  !  It  is,  indeed,  in  the  visi- 
ble Church  alone  that  God  has  deposited  his  covenant;  such  as  fail  to 
enter  that  Church,  therefore,  cannot  be  considered  as  in  a  covenanted 
state.  Still  they  arc  in  the  hands  of  a  merciful  lleing",  who  makes  due 
allowance  for  the  errors  of  his  frail  creatures;  pardoning  and  receiving 
al!  wlio  sincerely  desire  and  endeavour  to  know  and  to  do  his  will.  But 
this  point  will  be  fully  considered  in  a  future  letter. 


LET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDRR.  46 

That  outward  ordination  is  essential  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Church,  and,  of  course,  to  all  cove- 
nanted title  to  mercy.  This  conclusion  it  is  ut- 
terly impossible  to  evade.  Outward  ordination, 
then,  lies  at  the  foundation  equally  of  the  Episco- 
pal and  of  the  Presbyterial  creed;  in  eacli  of  these 
creeds  it  is  made  the  only  regular  and  appointed 
CHANNEL  through  which  remission  of  sin  and  eter- 
nal life  are  to  be  obtained.  Hence  for  the  one 
society  to  inveigh  against  the  stress  laid  by  the 
other  upon  communion  with  the  visible  Church 
must  ever  be  the  extreme  of  inconsistency. 

In  what,  then,  do  Episcopalians  and  Presbyte- 
rians differ  on  the  subject  in  question  ? 

They  differ,  simply,  as  to  the  tribunal  in  ^vhich 
the  power  of  ordination  is  lodged.  Episcopalians 
maintain  that  the  great  Head  of  th^  Church  in- 
stituted a  ministry  consisting  of  distinct  and  sub- 
ordinate orders :  giving  to  the  highest  order  the 
exclusive  power  of  ordaining.  They,  of  course, 
2:0  on  to  the  conclusion,  that  ordination  is  valid 
only  when  performed  by  the  highest  order  of  the 
ministry;  such  ordination  alone  possessing  the 
sanction  of  Divine  authority.  Presbyterians  main- 
tain that  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  instituted 
a  ministry  upon  the  footing  of  equality;  rendering 
ordination  the  work  of  a  Presbytery.  They,  of 
course,  go  on  to  the  conclusion,  that  ordination 
performed  by  a  Presbytery  is  alone  valid;  such 
ordination  alone  being  stamped  with  the  authority 
of  God.  In  short — Episcopalians  say,  that  Epis- 
copal ordination  is  the  divinely  instituted  mode; 


46  EXTERNAL  ORDER,  LET.  IV. 

— Presbyterians  say,  that  Presbyterial  ordination 
is  that  mode. 

It  is  true,  Presbyterians  are  obliged  to  admit 
the  Episcopal  Church  to  be  a  real  Church  of 
Christ;  but  they  take  care  to  protest  against  what 
they  call  her  corruptions,  and  to  admit  her  to  be  a 
real  Church  only  in  consideration  of  what  they 
call  her  Presbyterial  features.  The  ycry  thing, 
which,  in  her  own  yiew,  gives  her  the  character 
of  a  Church,  they  represent  as  an  invention  of 
the  great  adversary.  So  much  virtue,  liowever, 
do  they  suppose  to  reside  in  Presbyterianism,  that 
wherever  they  regird  it  as  only  substantially  exist- 
ing, they  consider  all  impurities  and  corruptions 
as  cured;  and,  without  hesitation,  acknowledge  the 
character  of  Church  to  be  possessed.  But  the 
Greek  Christians  they  excommunicate  at  once; 
and  for  no  earthly  reason,  saving  that  they  ordain 
by  the  imposition  of  hands  of  a  single  clergy- 
MAxN,  instead  of  ordaining  by  the  imposition  of 
hands  of  a  Presbytery. 

The  two  societies,  then,  lay  equal  stress  upon 
the  rite  of  outward  ordination  ;  differing  only  as  to 
the  tribunal  by  which  it  is  to  be  performed.  Each 
society  insists  upon  its  own  mode  of  ordination  as 
of  exclusive  validity.  So  far  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians  would  seem  to  attach  precisely 
equal  value  to  what  may  be  called  matters  of  Ex- 
tern rd  Order. 

But  1  proceed  to  state  some  facts,  at  which  the 
reader,  if  the  subject  be  new  to  hira,  will,  pro* 
bably,  be  not  a  little  surprised. 


LET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  47 

The  error  of  carrying  points  of  External  Order 
too  far  has  ever  been  a  sectarian  error.  It  is  an 
unquestionable  fact,  that  Presbyterians,  on  this 
subject,  go  mu>  h  beyond  their  Episcopal  breth- 
ren. Thus,  not  content  with  representing  their 
own  particular  method  of  ordination  as  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  and  to  all  cove- 
nanted title  to  salvation,  they  openly  tell  us,  that 
the  lohole  frame  of  their  ecclesiastical  goverjiment 
is  set  forth  in  Scripture^  and  is  of  Divine  and  un- 
alterable  OBLIGATION. 

"  It  is  lawful  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God, 
that  the  Church  be  governed  by  several  sorts  of 
assemblies,  which  are  composed  of  pastors  and 
other  elders,  and  are  congregational,  classical, 
and  synodical.  The  government  of  the  Churchy 
by  these  several  sorts  of  assemblies,  in  a  just  sub- 
ordination, is  called  Presbyterial  Church  Go- 
vernment ;  and  is  the  true  and  only  form  of  govern- 
ment which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  prescribed 
in  his  word."^  "  The  Synod  do  solemnly  receive 
the  form  of  Presbyterial  Church  government,  pre- 
fared  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster^ 
as  being  in  substance  the  only  form  of  government 
which  the  Lord  Jesus  hath  prescribed  to  his 
Church."t 

But  let  the  Westminster  Divines  speak  for  them- 
selves. "  Christ  hath  instituted  a  government,  and 
governors  ecclesiastical  in  the  Church."  '^  It  is 
lawful  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  that  the 

*  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  ChiMTii,  \n 
North-Americji,  p.47'4,  5.^      '  tibid.  p.  47? 


4ii  EXrtU-N AL  ORUir.K.  LET.   IV. 

Church  be  liovornecl  by  several  sorb  of  assem- 
blies,  ^vhich  are  Congregational,  Classical,  and 
Synodical."'  "  The  Scripture  doth  hold  out  a 
Preslntery  in  a  Church — A  Presbytery  consisteth 
of  ministers  of  the  word,  Lc^  "  The  Scripture 
doth  hold  out  another  sort  of  assemblies  for  the 
government  of  the  Church,  which  we  call  Syno- 

dic'cil.''" 

Thus,  then,  the  whole  frame  of  Presbyterial 
Churcli  government,  consisting  of  Congregational, 
Classical,  and  Synodical  assemblies,  in  just  sub- 
ordination to  each  other,  is  declared  to  be  drawn 
out  in  Scripture,  and  so  placed  upon  the  ground 
of  divine  institution.  ,The  society  to  which  you 
belong,  it  is  well  known,  have  taken  the  West- 
minster Divines  as  their  guides,  w  ith  respect  both 
to  doctrine,  and  government;  in  fact,  your  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  your  Articles  of  Government, 
you  expressly  tell  us,  were  drawn  up  by  those  Di- 
vines. Accordingly,  upon  recurring  to  your  stan- 
dards, 1  find  the  following  unequivo  al  declaration: 
-'  We  hold  it  to  be  expedient,  agreeable  to  Scrip* 
ture,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
that  the  Church  be  governed  by  Congregational, 
Presbyterial,  and  Synodical  assemblies.*'! 

Let  me  refer  you,  for  a  moment,  to  your  own 
letters.  "  The  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  go- 
vernment 16,  in  the   NeAV   Testament,  distinctly 

•  The  form  of  Presbyterial  Church  government  agreed  upon  by  the 
assembly  of  divuies  at  Westnninster,  with  commisiigners  from  the 
Church  of  Scotland. 

t  Form  of  Government,  cliap.  vii  sect,  I. 


lET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  4y 

pourtrayed."  "  This  is  the  truly  primitive  and 
apostolic  form."*  "  Christians,  in  all  ages,  are 
bound  to  make  the  apostolic  order  of  the  Church, 
with  respect  to  the  ministry,  as  ivell  as  other  points j 
the  model,  as  far  as  possible,  of  all  their  ecclesi- 
astical arran2:ements."t 

It  is,  then,  the  Prcsbyterial  doctrine,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  hath  prescribed  a  particular  form  of 
government  to  his  Church;  that  this  form  consists 
of  Congregational,  Classical,  and  Synodical  as- 
semblies, in  a  just  subordination;  that  it  is  bind- 
ing in  all  places,  and  throughout  all  time. 

In  short,  Prcsbyterial  government  is  prescribed 
by  a  divine  law;  habitual  disobedience  to  any  of 
the  divine  laws  will  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  :t — it  follows,  that  habitual  disobedience 
to  Prcsbyterial  government  will  exclude  from  that 
kingdom.  Thus  the  whole  Episcopal  Church, 
throughout  the  world,  whether  Protestant,  Greek, 
or  Papal ;  all  classes  of  dissenters,  Congregation- 
alists.  Independents,  Methodists,  Baptists,  Qua- 
kers ;  in  a  word,  all  societies,  not  Presbyterially 
constituted,  unless  they  can  plead  unavoidable 
ignorance,  or  involuntary  error  in  their  excuse,  are 
consigned  to  perdition. 

*  U^tters,  p.  70.  f  Ibid.  p.  8. 

+  This  is  tlie  express  language  of  the  Christian's  ^Nfng-azine  ;  indeed, 
it  must  be  the  language  of  all  who  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that 
he  has  prescribed  laws  for  the  government  of  his  creatures.  A  merci- 
ful God  will,  doubtless,  m;ike  alluWitnce  for  error.  Still,  it  is  true,  as 
a  general  rule,  that  habitual  disobedience  to  any  of  the  divine  laws 
will  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  Such  is  the  declaration  of 
Scripture — '*  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law,  and  yet  oftend  hi 
one  point,  he  i;>  f^uilty  of  all.'*    James  ii.,  10, 

7 


50  EXTEK'biAL  ORDER.  LET.   IV^ 

How  will  you  escape  from  this  conclusion?—- 
You  expressly  say,  that  Presbyteiial  government  is 
prescribed  by  a  divine  laAv — You  expressly  say, 
that  hibitiril   disobedience  to  any  of  the   divine 
laws  will  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven- 
It  is  very  tri>e,  you  do  not  make  conformity  to 
Presbyterial  government  so  rigid  a  condition,  that 
God  will  pardon  none  who  may  fail,  through  ig- 
norance or  error,  to  perform  it.     The  amount  ot 
y3ur  doctrine,  then,  is,  that  none  can  be   saved 
who  depart  fram  Presbyterial  Church  government, 
unless   they  can   plead    excusable    ignorance    or 
ciTor  for  their  departure.     I  do  not  blame  you  for 
this  conclusion;   but,   surely,   you   should  cease 
to  inveigli  against  the  claims  of  the  advocates 
of    Episcopacy.     They  have   never   made   com- 
munion with  the  true  visible  Church  more  than  a 
general  condition  of  salvation.     They  have  never 
failed  to  express  their  belief  that  God  will  pardon 
thosCy  who,  through  excusable  error,  depart  from 
his   positive   institutions.     They  insist   no   more 
upon  conformity  to  Episcopal  ordination  than  you 
insist  upon  conformity  to  Presbyterial  ordination; 
nay,  they  lay,  substantially,  no  more  stress  upon 
conformity  to  Episcopal  ordination  than  you  lay 
\\[)o\\  conformity  to  the  whole  frame  of  your  ec- 
clesiastical government.     Ought  you  not,  then,  to 
apologize  for  the  opprobrious  limguage  which  you 
ha\(*  permitted  yourself  to  apply  to  your  oppo- 
nents in  this  controversy? 

"  The   ideas  of  Episcopalians,  on  the  subject 
of  ecclesiastical   government,  are  very   different 


¥.ET.  rV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  61 

from  those  of  their  Presbyterian  brethren.  They 
contend,  simply,  that  the  ministry  is  of  divine 
institution;  and  that  this  ministry  is  in  distinct 
grades,  with  appropriate  powers.  They  deny  that 
there  is  a  form  of  government  for  the  Church 
sketched  out  in  all  its  parts  in  Scripture.  The 
ministry,  in  distinct  grades,  with  appropriate 
powers,  as  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
being  preserved  inviolate,  they  hold  that  man  is 
left  at  liberty  to  exercise  a  sound  discretion  as  to  the 
particular  mode  of  managing  ecclesiastical  affairs^ 
and  of  governing  the  Church  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  there  is  no  precise  model  for  governing  the 
Church  laid  down  in  Scripture,  from  which  it  is 
unlawful  to  depart."* 

"  The  single  thing  contended  for,  is,  that  there 
are,  by  divine  institution,  three  distinct  grades 
of  ministers,  with  appropriate  authorities.  As  to 
the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  public  worship,  the 
forms  of  discipline,  and  the  particular  organization 
of  that  authority  by  which  canons  are  passed  for 
the  government  of  the  Church,  the  Scriptures 
prescribe  no  model ;  leaving  the  matter  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  human  discretion.  Even  the  laity  may 
be,  and,  in  this  country,  are  associated  in  the 
management  of  ecclesiastical  affairs ;  and,  in  Eng- 
land, there  are  various  officers  for  the  same  pur- 
pose ;  which  the  Scriptures  no  where  either  pro- 
hibit  or  enjoin.  But  none  of  these  can  touch  the 
sacerdotal  authorities  of  preaching,  of  bapti/jn^; 

*  Z!o'\v's  T-.etter''  to  Millar,  p.  S*!^, 


52  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  I\v 

of  administering  the  eucharist,  of  confirming,  of 
ordaining;  such  authorities  being  reserved  to  an 
order  of  men  expressly  set  apart  as  ministers  of 
Christ;  empowered  to  act  as  his  ambassadors,  to 
sign  and  seal  in  his  name.  A  divine  commission 
is  necessary  to  quahfy  them  for  their  work;  it  be- 
in,:^  no  other  than  that  of  taking  men  into  cove- 
nant with  God,  by  administering  to  them  the  ap- 
pointed seals.  The  ministry  cannot  be  changed. 
Why  ?  Because  it  is  a  divine  institution ;  being 
established  as  the  mean  of  vibible  intercourse  be- 
tween God  and  man.  God  acts  by  his  agent,  and 
thus  takes  man  into  covenant  with  himself.  It  is 
the  divine  commission  that  gives  validity  to  the 
act  performed ;  rendering  it  the  act  of  God.  If, 
then,  you  take  the  priesthood  from  the  order  of 
luen  to  whom  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  has 
given  it,  and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  a  different 
order,  it  ceases  to  rest  upon  a  divine  foundation. 
The  sacerdotal  powers  are  exercised  by  the  agents 
of  men,  not  by  the  ministers  of  Christ. 

"  This  mode  of  reasoning  is  equally  conclusive 
to  prove  that  laymen  cannot  baptize,  and  that 
Presbyters  cannot  ordain.  And  it  is  just  as  ridi- 
culous to  inveigh  against  the  arrogance  of  Epis- 
copalians for  insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  Epis- 
copal ordination,  as  it  would  be  to  inveigh  against 
the  arrogance  of  Presbyterians  for  insisting  upon 
the  necessity  of  clerical  baptism.  Both  equally 
believe  in  a  priesthood;  differing  only  as  to  the 
manner  of  its  constitution.  And  why  there  should 
be  more  bigotry  in  thinking  that  the  priesthood  is 


LET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  '  63 

established  upon  the  principle  of  subordination. 
than  upon  that  of  equality,  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss 
to  comprehend. 

"  Thus,  then,  the  Episcopal  Church  simply  con- 
tends for  a  ministry,  as  of  divine  institution:  which 
ministry  she  believes  to  consist  of  distinct  orders, 
with  appropriate  powers.  The  arrangement  of 
these  powers  being  made  by  God,  cannot,  she 
holds,  be  altered  by  any  human  authority.  But 
as  to-the  ceremonies  of  public  worship,  the  forms 
of  discipline,  the  particular  organization  by  which 
authority  is  exercised  in  passing  canons  for  regu- 
lating the  aflairs  of  the  Church,  she  believes,  in 
opposition  to  the  Puritans,  that  no  precise  model 
is  laid  down,  and  that  man  is  left  to  exercise  a 
sound  discretion;  provided,  always,  that  nothing 
be  done  contrary  to  the  word,  or  the  spirit,  of  the 
sacred  oracles."''^ 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears,  that  Epis- 
copalians and  Presbyterians  attach  precisely  the 
same  value  to  the  visible  Church;  that  they  equally 
make  outw  ard  ordination  essential  to  its  existence ; 
and  that  each  society  insists  upon  the  exclusive 
validity  of  its  o\\  n  mode  of  ordination.  But,  while 
Episcopalians  content  themselves  with  setting  forth 
the  doctrine  that  there  is  a  visible  Church,  to  whose 
existence  an  outwardly  ordained  ministry  is  essen- 
tial, Presbyterians  do  not  thus  content  themselves, 
but  go  further,  and  represent  the  w^hole  frame  of 
their  ecclesiastical  government  as  of  divine  and 
unalterable  obligation. 

*  How's  Letters  to  3Iiller,  p.  43,  44. 


54  BXTERNAL  ORDlR.  LET.  IV. 

The  reader  can  be  at  no  loss  to  determine  which 
society  carries  External  Order  to  the  greatest  ex- 
tent. He  can  be  at  no  loss  to  pronounce  on  the 
correctness  of  the  epithets  which  you  and  your 
coadjutors  have  so  liberally  applied  to  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy. 

But  I  have  not  yet  done  with  this  part  of  the 
subject. 

There  is  a  sect  of  Presbyterians,  commonly 
distinguished  by  the  title  of  Covenanters,  whose 
doctrines,  relative  to  Church  government,  I  pro- 
pose very  briefly  to  consider.  The  Covenanters 
profess  to  be  Presbyterians  of  the  true  and  pure 
character.  Let  us,  then,  see  how  far  they  extend 
their  views  on  the  subject  of  Presbyterial  order. 
Dr.  M'Leod,  a  distinguished  clergyman  of  the 
society,  will  inform  us.  "  The  radical  principles 
of  Presbyterianism  are  essential  to  society."  "  No 
systejn  can  preserve  order  in  any  society,  civil 
or  ecclesiastic,  except  so  far  as  it  proceeds  upon 
the  principles  of  Presbyterianism.  The  reason  is 
obvious,  these  are  the  principles  which  the  Author 
of  human  nature  hath  rendered  essential  to  human 
society."  "  Every  other  system  is  both  inade- 
quate and  impossibhy* 

Here  Dr.  M'Leod  scruples  not  to  represent  Pres- 
byterial order  as  essential  to  lawful  society  in  the 
STATE,  not  less  than  in  the  church. 

But  let  us  consult  the  standards  of  the  deno- 
rnination  to  which  Dr.  M'Leod  belongs,  and  we 

*  EcoUsiaeUcal  Catechism,  p.  128,  129. 


lET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  65 

shall  be  able  to  judge  of  the  extent  to  which  thej 
go  in  the  practical  application  of  their  principles. 

They  hold  that  none  but  "  Christian  rulers,  ap* 
pointed  to  office  according  to  a  righteous  civil  con- 
stitution, have  authority  from  God  to  rule  in  sub- 
serviency to  the  kin^lom  of  Christ,  and  are  to 
be  conscientiously  supported."  "  There  are  mo- 
ral evils  essential  to  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  render  it  necessary  to  refuse  die- 
giance  to  the  whole  system.  This  constitution  is, 
notwithstanding  its  numerous  excellences,  in  many 
instances,  inconsistent,  oppressive,  and  impious." 
"  Presbyterian  Covenanters,  perceiving  immorality 
interwoven  with  the  general  and  states  constitution 
of  government  in  America,  have  uniformly  dis- 
sented from  the  civil  establishments."* 

But  I  hasten  to  bring  this  part  of  the  subject  to 
a  conclusion. 

The  error  of  carrying  External  Order  too  far,  I 
repeat  it,  has  ever  been  a  sectarian  error. — You 
are  not  ignorant.  Sir,  of  the  dispute  between  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Puritans  on  the  sub- 
ject of  rites  and  ceremonies.  Read  the  third  book 
of  Hooker's  incomparable  work  on  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,  and  you  will  see  the  absurd  extreme  to 
which  the  Sectaries  carried  their  ideas.  They 
maintained  not  only  that  the  organization,  ac- 
cording to  which  ecclesiastical  power  is  to  be  ex- 
ercised, is  completely  drawn  out  in  Scripture ;  but 
that  no  rites  or  ceremonies  are  to  be  admitted  in 

"  Refbrmjitiwn  Principles,  part  ii.  p,  .106,  part  \  p,  l.'jG,  154 


56  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IV, 

public  worship,  unless  specifically  commanded  in 
the  word  of  God.  Accordingly,  they  declaimed 
against  kneeling  at  the  eucharist,  against  bowing 
at  the  name  of  Jesus,  against  the  sign  of  the  Cross 
in  baptism,  the  use  of  tlie  ring  in  marriage,  the 
particular  vestments  of  the  clergy,  and  many  other 
such  matters,  as  not  expressly  prescribed  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  and,  therefore,  refused  to  submit  to  them 
as  inconsistent  with  their  Christian  hberty.  Thus 
the  Puritans  held,  that  all  the  minute  and  parti- 
cular forms  of  proceeding  in  public  worship,  and 
in  the  conducting  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  are 
positively  set  down  in  the  sacred  volume ;  declin- 
ing to  conform  to  any  regulation  whatever,,  unless 
a  precise  Scriptural  warrant  for  that  identical  regu- 
lation could  be  produced.  Nor  will  you  deny,  I 
suspect,  your  adherence,  in  a  good  degree,  to 
these  rigid  ideas.  For  example,  you  will  not  ad- 
mit, I  venture  to  say,  a  power  in  the  Church  to 
require  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  in  the 
Lord's  supper,  to  be  received  in  a  kncehng  pos- 
ture. You  will  not  admit  a  power  in  the  Cliurch 
even  to  regulate  the  vestments  of  her  Clergy. 
These  matters,  nevertheless,  you  acknowledge  to 
be,  in  themselves,  indifferent;  in  other  words,  to 
have  nothing  in  their  nature  which  is  forbidden 
by  the  divine  law;  for,  you  expressly  say,  that  a 
Presbyterian  clergyman  would  have  no  hesitation 
to  administer  the  Lord's  supper  to  persons  who 
might  choose  to  receive  it  kneeling;  and  you  scru- 
ple not  to  wear  a  dress  very  much  like  that  which 
the  Episcopal  Churgh  has  thoudit  proper  to  pre- 


LET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  57 

scribe  to  her  clergy.  The  objection  to  prescrip- 
tions of  this  sort,  then,  must  be,  simply,  that 
they  are  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture;  and,  such 
being  the  case,  that  the  Church  can  have  no  au« 
thority  to  enjoin  them  upon  her  members.  Thus, 
in  fact,  you  not  only  insist  that  the  form  of  eccle- 
siastical organization  is  settled  in  Scripture,  but 
that  there  is  so  far  a  system  of  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies prescribed  therein,  that  the  authority  of  the 
Church  is  not  competent  to  enjoin  upon  her 
members  the  observance  of  any  rites  and  cere- 
monies, without  producing  for  them  a  precise 
Scriptural  direction.^ 

*  The  remarks  just  made,  it  may  be  said,  cannot,  possibly,  be 
©orrect ;  inasmuch  as  Presbyterians  establish  various  rules  in  religious 
worship,  for  which  no  precise  direction  of  Scripture  is  pretended  to 
be  shown.  This,  however,  only  proves  that  Presbyterians  are  incon= 
sistent  with  themselves;  opposing  institutions  and  practices  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  upon  the  very  principle  to  which  they,  at  other 
times,  find  themselves  obliged  to  have  recourse,  in  defence  of  their 
own  conduct.  The  same  inconsistency  is  observable  in  the  history  of 
your  predecessors,  the  Puritans.  They  declaimed,  violently,  against 
particular  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England,  on  the 
ground,  that,  not  being  specifically  set  down  in  Scripture,  the  Church, 
in  requiring  the  observance  of  them,  was  guilty  of  a  flagrant  violation 
of  the  law  of  Christian  liberty.  But  when  this  rigid  doctrine  was 
shown  to  be  fatal  to  some  of  their  own  prescriptions,  they  could  relax 
it  so  far,  as  merely  to  require  that  such  prescriptions  be  fairly 
grounded,  if  not  on  special  precepts^  yet,  at  least,  on  the  general  rules 
of  Scripture.  This,  in  effect,  was  giving  up  their  very  cause  itself. 
But  the  Puritans  could  not  be  prevailed  upon  to  cease  from  their  un- 
reasonable and  intemperate  opposition  to  the  Church  of  England ; 
although,  in  order  to  sustain  that  opposition,  they  were  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  advancing  principles  too  absurd  to  be  possibly  acted  upon. 
The  perception  of  such  absurdity  and  impossibility,  should  have  led 
them  to  withdraw  their  objections,  and  unite  themselves  to  the  Church. 
Their  prejudices,  however,  were  too  deep,  and  their  spirit  too  fiery, 
^o  pertnit  this.    Thus  tbey  went  on,  declaiming  against,  ^nd  refusing 

8 


58  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IT. 

Still  further — The  Puritans  went  so  far  as  to 
maint  lin,  "  that  the  Scripture  of  God  is  in  such 
sort  the  rule  of  human  actions,  that  simply  what- 
soever we  do,  and  are  not  by  it  directed  thereunto, 
the  sa  ne  is  sin."  Hooker  exposes,  very  fully,  the 
absurdity  of  this  doctrine.  "  In  every  action  of 
common  life  to  find  out  some  sentence  clearly  and 
infallibly  setting  before  our  eyes  what  we  ought 
to  do,  would  trouble  us  more  than  we  are  aware."* 
"  Make  all  things  sin  which  we  do  by  direction  of 
nature's  light,  and  by  the  rule  of  common  discre- 
tion, without  thinking  at  all  upon  Scripture ;  admit 
this  position,  and  parents  shall  cause  their  chil- 
dren to  sin,  as  they  cause  them  to  do  any  thing 
before  they  come  to  years  of  capacity,  and  be 
ripe  for  knowledge  in  the  Scripture.  Admit  this, 
and  it  shall  not  be  with  masters  as  it  was  with 
him  in  the  Gospel;  but  servants  being  command- 
ed to  go,  shall  stand  still  till  they  have  their  er- 
rand warranted  unto  them  by  Scripture."! 

We  may  deduce  from  the  principle  in  ques- 
tion, Hooker  justly  observes,  the  complete  suf- 
ficiency of  Scripture,  as  well  for  the  exact  ma- 


to  conform  to  the  ceremony  of  kneeling  at  the  eucharist,  that  0/  the 
cross  in  baptism,  of  the  ring  in  marriage,  the  observance  of  particular 
festival  and  fast  days,  and  many  other  such  matters,  as  not  particu- 
larly enumerated  and  required  in  the  plain  letter  of  Scripture;  while 
they  could  run  into  the  glixring  inconsistency  of  prescribing  rules,  which, 
uot  being  able  to  defend,  as  exactly  pointed  out  and  enjoined  by  the 
very  words  of  holy  writ,  they  rested  upon  its  general  rules  or  canons ; 
not  recollecting,  or  not  caring  to  consider,  that  the  Church  of  England 
neither  used  nor  needed  any  other  defence  of  the  very  ceremonies 
which  they  alleged  a.s  the  ground  of  their  separation  from  her. 
'  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  vol.  i.  p.  342.  t  ^^^^^-  P-  ^42,  348* 


LET.  IT.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  59 

nas^ement  of  civil  concerns,  as  for  the  specific  re- 
gulation of  the  various  parts  of  public  worship. 
Indeed,  it  was  the  avowed  opinion  of  all  the  en- 
thusiastic sectaries  of  the  age,  that  the  sacred 
writings  exhibit  a  perfect  system,  not  only  of  spi- 
ritual instruction,  but  even  of  political  ivisdom. 
^'  Under  the  influence  of  this  wild  notion,  the  co- 
lonists of  New-Plymouth,  in  imitation  of  the  pri- 
mitive Christians,  threw  all  their  property  into  a 
common  stock,  and,  like  members  of  one  family, 
carried  on  every  work  of  industry  by  their  joint 
labour  for  public  behoof."* 

The  Anabaptists  expressly  contended,  that  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  us  free,  to  submit  to  any  law  except  the  law 
of  the  Gospel;  thus  striking  at  the  foundation  of 
all  civil  government.!  And  the  Puritans,  we  have 
seen,  maintained  not  only  that  God  hath  deli- 
vered in  Scripture,  a  complete,  particular,  and 
immutable  form  of  Church  polity ;  but  also,  that 
"  the  Scripture  is  in  such  sort  the  rule  of  human 
action,  that  simply  whatsoever  we  do,  and  are 
not  by  it  directed  thereunto,  the  same  is  sin.'-t 

The  influence  of  this  enthusiastic  spirit  is  felt 
even  at  the  present  day.  For  example — The  so- 
ciety of  Covenanters,  who  call  themselves  the 
only  consistent  Presbyterians,  adhere  very  closely 
to  the  old   Puritanic  ideas;  contending  that  the 


■"  Robertson's  America,  vol.  iv.  p.  276. 

■}■  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  iv.  p.  100.     Ih'id. — H.'jtor 
of  the  Anabaptists. 
-■■  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  heok.  v 


60  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IV. 

scheme  both  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion is  prescribed  in  Scripture  ;  and  refusing  alle- 
giance to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
because  not  perfectly  conformed  to  the  heavenly 
pattern.  And  the  denomination  to  which  you  be- 
long unequivocally  assert  the  divine  institution  of 
an  immutable  system  of  ecclesiastical  government. 
Thus  it  nppears,  beyond  all  question,  that  the 
Church  of  England  has  ever  occupied  the  true 
and  middle  ground  between  sectarian  strictness 
on  the  one  hand,  and  universal  latitudinarianism 
on  the  other.  She  maintains,  that  the  ministry  is 
of  divine  institution ;  that  it  is  in  distinct  and  sub- 
ordinate grades ;  and  that,  being  thus  established 
by  God,  it  cannot  be  changed  by  man.  She  de- 
nies that  ''  God  hath  delivered  in  Scripture  a 
complete,  particular,  immutable  form  of  Church 
polity."  Still  more  does  she  discard  the  absurd 
doctrine,  that  the  sacred  writings  contain  a  minute 
AND  SPECIFIC  DIRECTORY  for  the  regulation  equally 
of  spiritual  and  of  temporal  concerns.*  To  talk, 
therefore,  of  the  stress  which  Episcopalians  lay 
upon  External  Order,  or  of  the  extent  to  which 
they  carry  their  ideas  of  the  Scriptural  character 
of  their  own  particular  system,  is  always  to  be- 
tray extreme  want  of  information,  or  extreme 
want  of  candour.f 

•  See  passag-es  quoted  from  Hooker  in  a  preceding'  l>ag«. 

^  The  Purilans,  it  has  been  shown,  contended  that  Cod  hath  pre- 
scribed in  Scripture  a  complete  form  of  ecclesiastical  organization, 
and  also  an  exact  and  immutable  system  of  rites  and  ceremonies; 
while  the  Church  of  England  maintained  the  negative  of  each  of  these 
propositiong.    It  is  furtho;-  to  be  remarked,  that  ibe  Puritans  laid 


LET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  61 

We  will  here  put  down,  in  opposite  columns, 
l^egging  the  reader  to  pardon  the  repetition  which 

much  more  stress  than  the  Cluuxh  of  England  did,  upon  a  precise  ob- 
servance of  rites  and  ceremonies  in  reference  to  final  salvation.  This 
will  appear  from  the  language  held  by  the  celebrated  Cartw  right,  who 
distinguished  himself  so  much  on  the  Puritanic  side  of  the  controversy- 
— "  We  offer  to  show  the  discipline  to  be  a  part  of  the  Gospel,  and 
therefore  to  have  a  common  cause ;  so  that  in  the  repulse  of  the  disci- 
pline, the  Gospel  receives  a  check.'*  ♦*  You  which  distinguish  be- 
tween these,  and  say,  that  matters  of  faith  and  necessary  unto  salva- 
tion may  not  be  tolerated  in  the  Church,  unless  they  be  expressly  con- 
tained in  the  word  of  God,  or  manifestly  gathered;  but  that  ceremo- 
nies, order,  discipline,  government  in  the  Church,  may  not  be  received 
against  the  word  of  God,  and,  consequently,  may  be  received  if 
there  be  no  word  against  them,  although  there  be  none  for  them  ; 
you,  I  say,  distinguishing  or  dividing  after  this  sort,  do  prove  your- 
self  an  evil  divider.  As  though  matters  of  discipline,  and  kind  of  go- 
vernment, were  not  matters  necessm^  to  salvation,  and  of  faith." 
"  These  things,  you  seem  to  say,  when  you  say  that  matters  necessary 
to  salvation,  and  of  faith,  are  contained  in  Scripture,  especially  when 
you  oppose  these  things  to  ceremonies,  order,  discipline,  and  govern- 
ment."* 

It  is  not  less  amusing  than  instructive  to  look  back  at  the  contro- 
versies between  the  Charch  of  England  and  the  Puritans.  The  aeal 
©f  the  latter  for  their  pretended  holy  discipline  knew  no  bounds.  It 
was  the  institution,  they  said,  of  God,  and  unalterably  binding  upon 
all  Christians,  Societies  differently  constituted  were  synagogues  of 
Satan,  in  which  it  was  impossible  to  be  saved.  Was  any  attempt 
made  to  point  out  the  evil  consequences  that  would  result  from  the 
establishment  of  the  discipline  in  question  ?  It  was  immediately  re- 
plied,  that  the  discipline,  being  an  absolute  commandment  of  God, 
must  be  received,  even  if  it  should  turn  the  world  upside  down.f 

Let  us  rejoice  that  so  much  progress  has  been  made  among  all  de- 
nominations, since  the  period  referred  to,  towards  a  truly  catholic 
spirit.  It  augurs  most  favourably  to  the  cause  of  Christian  unity  and 
peace;  indeed,  it  may  well  be  considered  as  among  the  symptoms  of 
the  approach  of  millennial  harmony  and  blessedness.  Let  us  not  for- 
get, then,  while  we  contend  zealously  for  what  we  conceive  to  be  truth. 
V>  make  the  greatest  allowance  for,  and  sincerely  to  love  one  another 

*  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  vol.  i.  p.  399;  362. 
t  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  175, 176. 


62 


EXTERNAL  ORDER. 


LET.  IV. 


it  may  involve,  the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterial 
doctrine  on  the  subject  of  External  Order.  The 
result  of  the  tedious  investigation  into  which  we 
have  been  obUged  to  enter,  will  then  appear  at  a 
single  glance. 


Episcopal  doctrine, 

1.  Our  Lord  and  his 
Apostles  instituted  a  vi- 
sible Church,  of  which 
they  commanded  all 
men  to  become  mem- 
bers; and  out  of  this 
Church  there  is,  ordi- 
narily, no  remission  of 
sin,  and  no  covenanted 
title  to  salvation. 

2.  A  ministry  is  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of 
the  visible  Church. 

3.  Outward  ordination 
is  essential  to  the  minis- 
try. 

4.  The  Episcopal 
mode  is  essential  to  out- 
ward ordination. 

5.  Of  course,  w^ith- 
out  Episcopal  ordination 
there  can  be  no  Church, 
and  no  covenanted  title 
to  salvation. 


Presbyterial  doctrine. 


1.  Ibid. 


2.  Ibid. 


3.  Ibid. 


4.  The  Presbtterl\l 
mode  is  essential  to  out- 
ward ordination. 

5.  Of  course,  without 
Presbyterial  ordination 
there  can  be  no  Church, 
and  no  covenanted  titlf 
to  salvation. 


JLET.  IV. 


EXTERNAL  ORDEK. 


63 


G,  Presbyterial  ordi- 
nation is  invalid;  and 
the  societies  which  have 
adopted  it  have  no  mi- 
nisters and  no  ordinan- 
ces. It  should  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  a 
difference  of  opinion  ex- 
ists, on  this  point,  among 
Episcopalians.  Some 
hold  that  societies,  Pres- 
byterially  constituted, 
although  they  are  Chris- 
tian denominations,  can- 
not be  regarded  as 
Churches  of  Christ:  o- 
thers  are  disposed  to  con- 
cede the  Church  charac- 
ter to  Presbyterial  socie- 
ties, but  consider  them 
as  Churches  in  an  imper- 
fect and  unsound  state/^ 


6.  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion is  valid ;  being,  in 
fact,Presbyterial.  There- 
fore, the  Episcopal  so- 
ciety, being  in  substance 
a  Presbyterial  society, 
is  a  true  Church.  But 
her  Deacons  have  no 
authority,  and  such  as 
wait  upon  their  minis- 
trations are  guilty  of  re- 
bellion against  God. 
The  whole  society  of 
Greek  Christians,  being 
destitute  of  Presbyterial 
ordination,  are  in  a  state 
of  excommunication.f 
The  Roman  Catholic 
societies,  too,  according 
to  the  general  language 
of  Presbyterial  authors, 
so  far  from  beingChurch- 


*  See  note  at  the  end  of  tlie  volume. 

t  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  the  very  men  who  complain  of 
tJie  Episcopal  Church  for  unchurching*  other  denominations,  unchurch 
an  hundred  Christian  professors  where  she  unchurclies  one  such  pro- 
fessor. Episcopalians  unchurch  all  who  have  laid  aside  Episcopacy.* 
Presbyterians  unchurch  the  Greek  Church,  containing'  more  members 
than  the  whole  Protestant  world.  Besides,  the  dissenters  from  Epis- 
copacy sprung-  up  less  than  three  centuries  agt);. whilst  the  Greek 
Church  has  existed  from  the  early  ag-es  of  Christianity.  Now  multi- 
ply the  immense  number  of  Greek  Christians  by  the  number  of  g-ene- 
rations  that  have  passed  since  the  period  mentioned,  and  you  will  have 

1i  It  has  been  already  stotiitj  that  Episcopalians  differ  soitK^what  on  this  point. 


64 


EXTERNAL  ORDER. 


LET.  ir. 


7.  No  precise  form  of 
Church   government   is 
set   forth  in    Scripture. 
The  ministry,  as  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  being  preserv- 
ed inviolate,  man  is  at 
liberty    to    exercise    a 
sound   discretion   as  to 
the   proper    method   of 
organizing  ecclesiastical 
power,    and   regulating 
ecclesiastical  affairs. 


es  of  Christ,  are,  in  fact, 
synagogues  of  Satan.* 

7.  PresbyterialChurch 
government,  consisting 
of  Congregational,  Clas  - 
sical,  and  Synodical 
assemblies,  is  of  divine 
and  unalterable  obliga- 
tion. 


the  number  of  Christian  professors  who  arc  unchurched  by  the  Presby- 
terian doctrine.  Compare  this  number  with  the  number  of  dissenters 
from  Episcopacy,  multiplied  by  the  number  of  generations  that  have 
passed  since  Episcopacy  was  laid  aside,  and  you  will  be  able  to  form  some 
opinion  of  the  matter  in  question.  It  will  be  seen  that,  in  the  business 
of  unchurching,  you  exceed  your  Episcopal  opponents  at  the  rate  of 
at  least  an  hundred  to  one. 

But  the  Presbnerial  doctrine,  I  repeat  it,  unchurches  the  whole 
Christian  world.  What  is  this  doctrine' — Simply,  that  the  power  of 
ordination  is  vested  in  a  Presbytery. — Now,  ordination  has  always  been 
performed  in  the  Greek  Church  by  the  Bishop  alone;  and  was  so  per- 
formed in  the  Latin  Church  until  the  time  of  the  fourth  Council  of 
Carthage.  If  the  ordinations  performed  before  the  fourth  Council  of 
Carthage  were  invalid,  those  performed  since  must,  of  course,  be  in- 
valid also. — Presbyterians,  then,  must  cither  give  np  their  fundamen- 
tal principle,  that  "  the  power  of  ordination  is  in  a  Presbytery,"  or 
stand  charged  with  unchurching  the  whole  Christian  world. 

•  "  The  Puritans  affirmed  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  no  true  Church, 
and  all  her  mini»tration»  to  be  superstitious  and  idolatrous :  they  re- 
nounced her  communion,  and  durst  not  hang  the  validity  of  their  ordi' 
nationt  upon  an  uninterrupted  line  of  succession  from  the  Apostles, 
througk  their  hands."    Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  145 


LET.  IV. 


EXTERNAL  ORDER. 


65 


8.  Neither  Episcopacy 
nor  Presbytery  has  any 
thing  to  do  Avith  a  law- 
ful I  v  constituted  State, 


9.  No  perfect  system 
of  rites  and  ceremonies 
is  set  forth  in  Scripture. 
Every  Church  is  vested 
^vith  a  discretionary 
power  in  this  respect ; 
provided  always  that 
nothing  be  done  contra- 
ry to  the  word  or  the 
spirit  of  the  sacred  ora- 
cles. 


8.  Presbyterianism, 
some  societies  of  Pres- 
byterians say,  is  essen- 
tial to  all  lawful  society 
in  the  State ^  not  less 
than  in  the  Church, 

9.  An  immutable  sys- 
tem of  rites  and  cere- 
monies is  prescribed  in 
Scripture;  and  to  this 
system  all  are  bound  to 
conform. 

Such  was  the  doctrine 
of  the  Puritans;  and  such 
is  now  the  doctrine  of 
the  most  strict  among 
their  descendants.  In- 
deed the  Puritans  ex- 
tended the  principle 
even  to  civil  concerns; 
holding  "  Scripture  to 
be  in  such  sort  the  rule 
of  human  action,  that 
simply  whatsoever  we 
do,  and  are  not  by  it  di- 
rected thereunto,  the 
same  is  sin." 


It  will  be  proper,  before  leaving  this  part  of  the 
subject,  to  offer  a  few  remarks  by  way  of  pre- 
venting misconception. 

The  great  design  of  religion  i^  to  make  man  a 
9 


66  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IV. 

spiritual  being.  "  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments, for  this  is  the  whole  of  man." — "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  Avith  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind — 
This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment — and  the 
second  is  like  unto  it,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bour as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets."  If,  then,  we 
possess  these  spiritual  qualifications,  we  cannot 
fail  to  be  acceptable  in  the  Divine  sight ;  and  it 
must  be  of  little  consequence  whether  we  conform 
to  any  particular  system  of  external  institutions. 
Such  is  a  very  common  mode  of  thinking,  and  of 
arguing.  But,  let  it  be  recollected,  we  are  to  ke-^n 
the  commandments  of  God.  This  is,  indeed,  tnt- 
verv  definition  which  is  given  in  Scripture  of  true 
religion.  If  God  has  thought  proper  to  prescribe  a 
[)articular  system  of  ordinances,  can  it  be  matter 
of  indilTerence  whether  we  conform  to  them? 
What!  is  it  of  no  consequence  whether  we  keep 
or  violate  the  Divine  law? — "  Are  not  Abana  and 
Pharpar,  rivers  of  Damascus,  better  than  all  the 
>vaters  of  Israel  ?  May  I  not  wash  in  them  and 
be  clean?"  Such  was  the  reasoning  of  Naaman. 
His  error  consisted  in  making  himself  wiser  than 
the  inspired  messenger  of  Heaven ;  and  the  same 
error  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  language,  rela- 
tive to  forms  and  ordinances,  which  is  so  common 
at  the  present  day.  If  we  love  God  and  man, 
of  what  consequence  can  it  be  whether  we  belong 
to  tliis  or  that  society  of  Christians  ?  But  admit 
timt  God  has  established  a  visible  Church  in  the 


LKT.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER,  67 

world,  and  appointed  in  this  Church  a  priesthood 
to  act  in  his  name;  is  it  not  our  duty  to  enter  this 
Church,  and  to  wait  upon  the  ministrations  of  his 
authorized  agents?  To  answer  this  question  in 
the  negative,  is  to  say,  that  it  is  immaterial  whe- 
ther we  seek  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  in  a  Avay  of 
our  own  devising,  or  take  the  course  pointed  out 
by  infinite  wisdom ;  it  is  to  refuse  to  be  directed 
by  God  in  the  momentous  business  of  our  salva- 
tion. Of  what  consequence  can  it  be,  exclaims 
the  Quaker,  whether  we  conform  to  tlie  carnal 
ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  pro.-- 
vided  the  heart  be  right  ? — But  there  is  a  previous 
question — Are  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the 
supper  of  divine  institution?  If  they  are,  it  is  im- 
pious to  ask  what  purpose  they  can  answer.  There 
is  no  end  to  the  absurdities  in  which  the  mode  of 
reasoning  in  question  must  involve  us.  Our  first 
parents  thought  it  of  little  consequence  whether 
they  eat  or  abstained  from  eating  a  particular  fruit. 
So,  indeed,  it  was ;  considering  the  thing  in  itself, 
and  without  reference  to  the  Divine  command. 
The  deist,  too,  may  say — If  I  love  God,  it  is  iu}- 
material  whether  I  embrace  Christianity  or  not — 
God  requires  me  to  give  him  my  heart.  But  ^\Q. 
are  first  to  inquire  whether  there  is  suOiciont  evi- 
dence of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity.  Admit 
it  to  be  of  divine  origin,  and  the  conclusion  im- 
mediately follows,  that  v/e  are  to  make  it  our  rule 
of  faith  and  life. 

God  proposes  to  us  a  certain  end,  and  points 
out  the  means  by  which  it  may  be  attained.    I\Ian 


€8  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  LET.  IV. 

is  very  well  pleased  with  the  end;  blithe  thinks 
the  means  injudiciously  chosen:  He,  therefore, 
sets  iumself  to  work  to  devise  a  different  system. 

There  must,  necessarily,  be  forms  in  religion ; 
for  man  is  a  being  compounded  of  body  and  soul. 
Still,  these  forms  are  to  be  regarded  as  means  to 
an  end.  God  requires  us  to  use  them  with  a  view 
to  those  qualifications  of  the  heart  which  they 
are  designed  to  produce.  To  neglect  to  use  them 
is  one  error — to  use  them  without  reference  to  the 
end  is  another.  The  sincere  Christian  proposes  to 
himself  universal  conformity  to  the  Divine  law. 
It  is  his  supreme  desire  to  imbibe  the  spirit  of  his 
Redeemer.  He  sighs  for  deliverance  from  the  do- 
minion of  sin;  and  he  uses  all  the  means  of  grace 
which  God  has  pointed  out  to  him,  without  un- 
dertaking to  inquire  whether  they  are  of  a  nature 
to  do  him  good.  Holiness  of  heart  and  life  is  the 
great  object  of  his  pursuit.  He  pursues  it,  how- 
ever, not  in  a  way  of  his  own  choosing,  but  in 
humble  submission  to  the  Divine  direction. 

Every  good  and  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  and 
Cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights.  But  he 
chooses  his  own  method,  and  prescribes  his  own 
condition  of  dispensing  his  blessings.  He  grants 
the  end  only  to  such  as  use  the  appointed  means. 
This  is,  evidently,  the  general  rule;  although  a 
merciful  being  may  be  expected  to  bestow  the 
promised  blessing  on  those  whose  departure  from 
the  regular  method  of  seeking  it  is  not  wilful, 
but  the  result  of  frailty.  "  He  knows  whereof  we 
are  made,  and  remembers  that  we  are  but  dust." 


LET.  IV.  EXTERNAL  ORDER.  69 

But  the  allowance,  which  may  be  expected  to 
be  made  for  error,  with  the  opinions  of  our  re- 
spective societies  on  the  subject,  will  engage  our 
attention  in  the  next  letter. 


(      70     ) 

LETTER  V. 
CHARITABLE  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR. 

Sir, 

A  Have  shown,  beyond  the  possibility  of  dispute, 
that  the  Presbyterial  doctrine  is  quite  as  strict  and 
exclusive  as  the  Episcopal,  on  the  subject  of  out- 
ward ordination.  I  have  shown  that,  in  all  other 
points  connected  with  External  Order,  our  Pres- 
byterian brethren  are  distinguished  by  a  very  rigid 
turn  of  thinking ;  carrying  their  ideas  to  an  extent 
which  the  Church  has  ever  disclaimed  as  equally 
inconsistent  with  Scripture,  and  with  common 
sense.  For  every  thing  advanced  explicit  and 
unequivocal  passages  from  the  standards  of  Pres- 
byterial societies,  and  the  works  of  Presbyterial 
authors,  have  been  literally  quoted.  In  opposi- 
tion to  all  this,  of  what  avail  are  your  naked  as- 
severations? How  could  you  venture  to  say,  that 
all  the  Presbyterians  of  whom  you  have  ever 
heard,  consider  salvation  as  secured  by  covenant 
to  such  as  repent  and  believe,  whether  connected 
with  the  visible  Church  or  not?  I  look.  Sir,  for  the 
Presbyterial  doctrine,  not  to  your  unauthorized 
assertions,  but  to  the  standards  of  Presbyterial 
societies.  In  those  standards  I  find  it  expressly 
declared,  that  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation  out  of  the  visible  Church;  that,  to  be 
out  of  such  Church,  is  to  be  a  stranger  to  the  co- 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  71 

venant  of  promise.  Upon  consulting  Presbytcrial 
authors,  with  whom  you  are  well  acquainted,  I  fmd 
it  expressly  declared,  that  the  promises  of  the  Gos- 
pel are  all  made  to  the  visible  Church ;  and  that 
the  distinction  between  a  baptized  and  an  un- 
baptized  person,  lies  in  the  one  having  a  cove- 
nanted title  to  mercy,  while  the  other  is  left  to 
such  as  is  without  covenant.  To  what,  then,  shall 
I  ascribe  the  very  extraordinary  manner  in  which 
you  have  permitted  yourself  to  write  on  this  sub- 
ject? Without  producing  one  word  of  proof,  you 
indulge  in  a  strain  of  assertion  which  is  contra- 
dicted by  the  express  and  unequivocal  language 
of  your  public  standards ;  and  this,  too,  for  the 
purpose  of  fixing  the  charge  of  gross  misrepre- 
sentation upon  your  opponents  in  the  present  con- 
troversy. 

Let  us  now  take  some  notice  of  the  allowance, 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  our  respective  societies, 
is  to  be  made  for  error.  Here,  Sir,  it  will  be 
found  that  you  fall  far  short  of  your  opponents ; 
although  you  have  thought  proper  to  stigmatize 
them  as  intolerant  bigots,  with  whom  it  is  difficult 
to  live  upon  terms  of  Christian  intercourse.* 

A  better  illustration  of  the  subject  cannot  be 
given  than  by  considering  the  case  of  the  Quakers, 
in  reference  to  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the 
sacred  supper,  which  they  are  well  knonn  to  dis- 
card. 


Letters,  p.  19,  351. 


72  ALLOWANCE   FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

We  believe  that  these  ordinances  were  esta- 
blished by  Christ,  and  that  the  observance  of  them 
is  enjoined  upon  all  his  followers.  "  Go  ye  and 
make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them, 
&c."  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved."  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  for  the  re-* 
mission  of  sins."  With  respect  to  the  sacrament 
of  the  supper,  the  language  of  Scripture  is  equally 
express — "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me." — 
The  Quakers,  then,  are  in  the  practice  of  habi- 
tually neglecting  a  positive  command  of  God; 
and  universal  obedience  to  the  Divine  law  is  pre- 
scribed as  the  condition  of  salvation.  But  God 
is  a  merciful  being,  who  makes  allowance  for  the 
errors  of  his  frail  creatures.  Wilful  opposition  to 
the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel,  or,  indeed,  to  any  of 
the  Divine  laws,  must  exclude  from  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven.  This  is  a  dictate  of  common  sense. 
But  departure  from  the  institutions  of  God  of- 
ten proceeds  less  from  a  spirit  of  disobedience 
than  from  involuntary  error.  Here,  then,  we  lay 
down  the  general  principle,  that  where  there  is  a 
sincere  desire  to  know  and  do  the  will  of  God,  all 
violations  of  his  commands,  proceeding  from  ig- 
norance or  infirmity,  will  be  pardoned.  It  is  im- 
possible to  go  further  than  this,  Avithout  giving  up 
divine  truth  and  divine  right  altogether.  Submis- 
sion to  the  laws  of  God  is  certainly  necessary  to 
salvation.  To  call  in  question  the  truth  of  tiiis 
proposition,  considered  as  a  general  principle,  is 
to  say  that  we  may  as  well  go  to  Heaven  in  the 
way   of  transgression   as   in   that   of  obedience. 


LKT.  V,  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  73 

Well,  the  Quakers  have  laid  aside  particular  ordi- 
nances, the  observance  of  which  is  expressly  enjoin- 
ed by  Jesus  Christ  upon  all  his  followers.  In  this 
the  Quakers  are  under  a  great  error,  for  which 
they  must  answer  to  God.  So  far  as  the  error  is 
the  result  of  culpable  causes,  it  will  be  a  subject 
of  condemnation;  so  far  as  it  is  the  result  of  in- 
finnity,  it  will  be  pardoned.  We  pretend  not  to 
judii;e  in  any  individual  case  ;  leaving  all  judgment 
to  him  who  perfectly  knows  the  heart.  Thus, 
while  we  contend,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  sa- 
craments are  of  indispensable  obligation,  and  that 
persons  who  depart  from  them  must  answer  to 
God  for  so  doing;  on  the  other,  we  lay  down  a 
general  principle,  which  extends  the  mercy  of 
God  to  all  who  sincerely  desire  and  endeavour 
to  know  and  do  his  will,  whatever  violations  of 
his  commands  they  may  commit  through  involun- 
tary error. 

Precisely  the  same  style  of  remark  is  applicable 
to  those  who  depart  from  the  true  Church  as  in- 
stituted by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Of  this 
Church  all  men  are  commanded  to  become  mem- 
bers. In  refusing  to  become  membersof  it,  there- 
fore, they  violate  the  law  of  God.  So  far  as  their 
conduct  is  to  be  traced  to  unavoidable  ignorance 
or  involuntary  error,  it  will  be  excused ;  so  far  as 
it  is  the  result  of  pride,  passion,  negligence,  or 
any  other  culpable  cause,  it  will  be  ground  of 
condemnation.  Cvod  only  can  tell  when  enor  pro- 
ceeds from  a  criminal,  ^vlien  from  a  pardonable 
source:     IT^    o!»]v   can    tell,    in    each    indSvidurd 

10 


74  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET*  V. 

case,  how  I'ar  the  heart  is  sincere,  and  iiow  far 
allowance  is  to  be  made  for  the  ignorance,  the 
mistakes,  and  the  prejudices  of  his  frail  creatines. 
Fnrdier  than  this  H  is  impossible  to  go,  without 
giving  up  aUogether  the  right  of  thinking  for  our- 
selves; fuilhcr  it  is  impossible  to  go,  without  re- 
nouncing the  doctrine,  to  which  almost  all  deno- 
minations of  Christians  subscribe,  that  God  has 
established  one  visible  Church  upon  earth;  re- 
quiring all  men  to  enter  it,  and  to  obey  its  laws. 

While  we  contend  that  ordinances,  irregularly 
administered,  are,  in  themselves,  void ;  yet,  w^here 
the  irregularity  is  the  result  of  excusable  error, 
we  believe  that  the  ordinances  will  be  blessed  to 
the  recipient.     God  will  bestow  the   graces  an- 
nexed to  his  sacraments,  on  the  humble  and  the 
penitent,  who   receive   them   from   unauthorized 
men;  and  even  such  unauthorized  4iien  he  w^ill 
bless   and   sanctify,    where  the   violation  of  his 
laws  is  the  result  of  frailty;   not  of  indifference, 
or  of  pride.     To   such,  indeed,  as  suffer  a  self- 
sufficient  spirit  to  get  the  better  of  that  singleness 
of  heart,  and  of  that  conscientious  love  of  truth, 
which  should  characterize  every  disci[)le  of  Christ, 
nothing  can  be   held  out,  consistently  with   the 
express  language  of  Scripture,  but  the  awful  threats 
of  an  offended  God ;  and  in  proportion  as  such 
men  are  instrumental  in  leading  the  uninformed 
into  error,  will  the  weight  of  their  condemnation 
be  increased. 

Thus,  then,  while  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel, 
adniinistered  by  unauthorized  men,  are,  in  them- 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  KRUOR.  /O 

solves,  void,  and  no  divine  promise  is  annexed 
to  their  reception;  yet,  where  there  is  unfeigned 
sincerity  of  hearty  God,  we  trust,  ^vill  pardon  the 
irregularity  for  the  sake  of  the  sincerity.  To  use 
a  trit<3  mode  of  expression,  he  will  take  the  icill 
for  the  deed.  AUhough  the  ordinances  are  void, 
being  administered  by  a  void  authority,  still  God 
will  accept  them  as  valid,  and  make  them  chan- 
nels of  his  grace.  Those  influences  of  his  Spirit, 
to  which  there  is  no  covenanted  claim^  he  will,  ne- 
vertheless, bestow  by  way  of  special  favour. 

Let  it  not,  however,  be  supposed  that  we  run 
into  the  absurd  doctrine,  that,  provided  a  man  be 
sincere,  it  is  immaterial  what  opinions  he  enter- 
tains, or  with  what  denomination  of  Christians  he 
connects  himself.  The  divine  laws  derive  their 
obligatory  force  from  the  authority  by  which  they 
are  enacted*  not  from  any  opinion  which  man 
may  happen  to  entertain  of  them.  If  we  are  in 
error  as  to  the  injunctions  of  the  law  of  God,  it 
is,  at  all  events,  our  misfortune ;  and  it  becomes 
MS  most  seriously  to  take  care  that  it  be  not  our 
crime.  A  man  may  be  in  error  from  his  own 
fault.  He  has  neglected,  perhaps,  the  means  of 
information :  he  has  been  altogether  careless  about 
the  truth :  the  commands  of  God  have  not  been 
of  sufficient  weight  with  him  to  lead  him  seriously 
to  inquire  into  his  situation.  Sometimes  error  is 
the  consequence  of  a  vicious  course  of  life,  which 
has  blinded  the  understanding,  and  corrupted 
the  heart;  very  frequently  it  proceeds  from  a 
self-sufficient  spirit,  which  cannot  bring  ilsclf  to 


76  ALLOWAiNCE  FOR  LRROK.  LET.  V. 

submit  to  the  mortification  of  its  high  chiims.     A 
man  is  never  to  blame  for  doing  what  his  con- 
science tells  him  it  is  his  duty  to  do ;  but  he  may 
be  very  greatly  to  blame  for  having  an  erroneous 
conscience.     The   mistake   under   which   lie   la- 
bours, on  the  subject  of  his   duty,  may  be    the 
result  of  apathy,  which  will  not  inquire ;  or  of  pas- 
sion, which  will  be  gratified.     At  the  same  time, 
there  are  innumerable  circumstances  which  give 
a  bias  to  the  mind;  and  we   often  find  sincere 
piety  connected  with   no  small  portion  of  error. 
A   merciful   God  will    make   allowance   for  the 
weakness   of  reason,  for  the   force   of  prejudice, 
for  the  defects  of  education,   and  even,  in  some 
degree,  for  the  frailty    of  passion.     We   are  ex- 
pressly told,  that  God  will  not  be  strict  to  njark 
what  is  done  amiss;  that,  where  there  is  a  will- 
ing heart,    he  will  accept  us  according  to  what 
we   have,  not  according  to  what  we  have  not; 
that  he  knows  whereof  we  are  made,  and  remem- 
bers that  we  are  but  dust.     Still  there  is  an  im- 
mutable  distinction  between  truth  and  error;  it 
can  never  be  matter  of  indifi*erence  which  of  them 
we  embrace. 

The  connexion  between  princi}>le  and  practice 
is  most  inthnate.  What,  indeed,  is  practice  but 
embodied  principle  ?  The  characters  of  men  are. 
every  where,  formed,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
hy  the  opinions  which  they  entertain.  Among  the 
various  sects  of  ancient  philosophers,  how  con- 
stantly do  we  see  their  principles  exemplified  in 
their  lives !    In  truth,  the  doctrines  which  any  parti- 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  KHROR.  77 

ciihir  society  may  embrace,  will,  in  time,  mould  and 
determine  the  character  of  tiiat  society.  Haughty 
principles,  as  a  general  rule,  will  produce  haughty 
conduct :  licentious  principles  will  produce  licen- 
tious conduct :  virtuous  principles  will  j)roducc 
virtuous  conduct.  Truth  is  in  order  to  goodness. 
To  promote  the  cause  of  error^  is  to  promote  that 
of  vice;  for  it  will,  undoubtedly,  hold,  as  a  ge- 
neral rule,  that  in  proportion  as  a  country  or  an 
age  declines  from  truth  in  its  maxims^  it  will  de- 
cline from  virtue  in  \i^  practice.  Some  errors,  in- 
deed, are,  in'' a  very  slight  degree,  pernicious, 
when  compared  with  others ;  but  all  error  is,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  pernicious.  Still  there  arc 
exceptions  to  every  general  rule ;  and,  in  perfect 
consistency  with  what  has  been  said,  you  will 
often  find  men  whose  practice  is  better  than  their 
principles,  or  whose  principles  are  much  more 
correct  than  their  practice.  Indeed,  in  comparing 
men  together,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  one  per- 
son superior  to  another  in  the  purity  of  his  opi- 
nions, and,  at  the  same  time,  much  inferior  in  the 
regularity  of  his  life. 

The  train  of  remark  in  which  we  have  in- 
dulged, will  show  the  very  great  importance  of 
embracing  the  system  of  doctrines  which  is  re 
vealed  in  the  Gospel,  and  of  conforming  to  the 
positive  institutions  which  are  therein  established. 
The  doctrines  are  infallibly  true.  The  institutions 
are,  beyond  all  question,  divine  institutions.  But, 
in  the  case  under  consideration,  independently  of 
the  native  tendency  of  truth   to  perfect,  and  o^ 


78  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

error  to  pervert  the  human  inintl,  God  has  im- 
posed upon  us  the  express  obligation  of  embrac- 
ing his  Gospel,  and  of  obeying  its  laws.     He  has 
marked  out  to  us  the  exact  path  in  which  we  are 
to  travel  to  his  heavenly  kingdom.     This  path,  in 
the  opinion  equally  of  Episcopal  and  of  Presby- 
terial  societies,  is  the  one  visible  Church  to  which 
God  has  given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinan- 
ces, which  are  the  means  of  grace.     The  Church 
is  the  body  of  Christ.     It  is  enlightened  and  sanc- 
tified by  his  Spirit.     Its  members  stand  in  a  cove- 
nanted  relation  to  God;  they  have  2itovencmted  title 
to  eternal  life.     Such  as  depart  from  the  Church 
lose  this  covenanted  title  ;  wandering  from  the  true 
path  marked  out  to  conduct  them  to  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven.     Still,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  be  in  the 
true  path:  we  must  dihgently  use  the  means  of 
grace.     The  circumstance  of  having  a  covenanted 
title  to  Heaven,  if  we  perform  not  the  conditions 
upon  which  the  title  is  suspended,  will  only  ag- 
gravate  our   condemnation.     Many,  who  are   in 
the  true  road,  will  never  reach  the  end  of  their 
journey,  from  the  want  of  diligence  on  the  way; 
whilst  others,  notwithstanding  they  may  have  wan- 
dered from  the  true  road,  will  finally  arrive  at  the 
great  object  of  their  pursuit,  by  the  sincerity  and 
zeal  of  their  cfi*orts  to  attain  it.     Yet  it  will  never 
ilo  to  go  on  to  the  ( onclusion,  that,  provided  a 
man  be  sincere  and  zealous,  it  is  immaterial  what 
course   he   takes   to   Heaven.     A   course   having 
been  marked  out  for  us  by  God,  we  are  all  under 
the  most  sacred  obligation  to  pursue  it;  turning 


LET.  V.  AI.LOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  79 

aside  iieUher  to  the  right  liand,  nor  to  the  left. 
It  is  not  siiflicient  that  a  man  be  persuaded  in  liis 
own  mind;  it  is  necessary  that  he  embrace  the 
Gospel  of  Jesits  Christ,  and  walk  in  his  laws. 
Under  such  circumstances  alone,  can  he  have  any 
covenanted  claim  to  mercy  ;  although  it  may  please 
God,  in  many  instances,  where  he  se^s  unfeigned 
sincerity,  to  bestow  mercy,  to  which  no  federal 
transaction  may  have  secured  a  regular  title.  Let 
every  man  be  firmly  persuaded  in  his  own  mind: 
let  every  man,  at  the  same  time,  be  careful  that 
he  seek  the  truth  in  singleness  of  heart.  If,  in- 
stead of  honestly  labouring  to  subdue  prejudice 
and  passion,  we  suffer  indifference,  pride,  self- 
sufficiency,  or  a  bitter  spirit  of  sectarianism,  to 
blind  our  understanding,  and  render  us  obstinate 
in  error,  we  must  take  the  consequences  of  our 
conduct. 

There  are  two  senses  in  which  a  condition  of 
salvation  may  be  termed  indispensable.  The  first 
has  reference  to  the  right  of  man  to  comply  with 
the  condition  or  not  as  he  may  see  proper;  the 
second,  to  the  question,  whether  there  is  reason 
to  supix)se  that  the  condition  will,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, be  dispensed  with  by  God.  It  will 
readily  be  seen  that  a  condition  may  be  indis- 
pensable in  one  of  these  senses,  when  it  is  far  from 
being  so  in  the  other.  The  positive  ordinances  of 
religion,  as  far  as  human  authority  and  power 
may  be  concerned,  are  of  unalterable  obligation. 

Without  holiness  no  man  sliall  see  God.  Here 
is  a  condition  of  salvation  which  is,  in  every  sense 


;jO  allowance  for  ekkor.  let.  v. 

of  the  word,  indispensable.  The  positive  institu- 
tions of  religion,  however,  are  not  to  be  viewed 
in  precisely  the  same  point  of  light.  Inchspensa- 
ble,  strictly  speakinc:,  as  far  as  the  autliority  of 
man  is  concerned :  God,  nevertheless,  has  power 
to  dispense  with  theni,  and,  under  proper  circum- 
stances, will  exercise  the  power. 

On  all  this  subject  Episcopalians  and  Presby- 
terians entertain  l^ut  one  opinion.  They  agree 
that  the  positive  institutions  of  the  Gospel  are 
unalterably  binding  upon  man.  They  agree  that 
departure  from  such  institutions  will  exclude  from 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  unless  it  proceed  from 
excusable  error.  The  allowance  which  Presbyte- 
rians make  for  departure  from  Presbyterial  ordina- 
tion, is  precisely  that  which  Churchmen  make  for 
departure  from  Episcopal  ordination.  Nay,  it  can 
be  unanswerably  shown,  that  your  opponents  do 
not  carry  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy  further,  in 
reference  to  future  happiness,  than  you  carry  the 
rigid  doctrine  of  absolute  unconditional  election 
and  reprobation.  For  example — Eternal  life  is 
secured  by  the  covenant  of  grace  to  those  who 
embrace  the  Gospel  of  Christ.*  The  doctrine  of 
unconditional  election  and  reprobation  is  a  fun- 
damental doctrine  of  the  Gospel;  so  fundamental, 
that  without  it  you  "  would  be  plunged  into  dark- 
ness and  despair ;"  and  "  the  whole  plan  of  sal- 
vation would  be  nothing  better  than  a  gloomy 
system  of  probabilities  and  peradventurcs :  a  sys- 

•   Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  SB,  59. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  81 

tern,  on  the  whole,  nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  likely 
to  land  the  believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned, 
as  in  the  paradise  of  God."^ 

Well — eternal  life  is  secured  by  the  covenant 
of  grace  to  such  as  believe  the  Gospel ;  of  which 
the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  and  repro- 
bation is  a  most  important,  indeed,  an  essential 
feature.  To  refuse  to  believe  in  this  doctrine,  is 
to  refuse  to  do  that  which  the  covenant  of  grace 
requires  us  to  do  in  order  that  we  may  be  saved. 
Now,  Sir,  will  you  venture  to  say  that  your  oppo- 
nents have  ever  attached  greater  importance  than 
this  to  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy  ?  It  is  true, 
you  suppose  that  God  will  make  allowance  for 
those  who  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  dissent  from 
the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism  ;  but  have  not  your 
opponents  invariably  expressed  their  decided  be- 
lief that  God  will  pardon  the  rejection  of  Episco- 
pacy, where  such  rejection  is  the  result  of  invo- 
luntary error  ?  Wilful  opposition  to  Episcopacy  is 
certainly  rebellion  against  God,  and  must,  there- 
fore, exclude  from  his  presence.  Can  you  say 
less  of  wilful  opposition  to  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
Calvinism  ?  If  these  tenets  constitute  important 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  then  we  are  commanded 
by  God  to  believe  in  them.  Wilful  rejection  of 
them,  therefore,  is  rebellion  against  God ;  and 
rebellion  against  God  must  involve  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  soul.  In  short,  your  opponents  say 
Hiat  wilful  rejection  of  Episcopacy  will  exclude 


ConHnuatlon  of  Letter?,  t>.  33' 
11 


r>2  ALLOWANCE   FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V 


o 


from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  :  you  say  that  wilful 
rejection  of  Presbytery — nay,  even  of  the  peculi- 
arities of  Calvinism,  will  exckide  from  that  king- 
dom :  and  the  very  same  allowance  which  you 
4nake  for  error  in  the  one  case,  your  opponents 
make  for  it  in  the  other. 

Having  considered  the  allowance  which  our  re- 
spective societies  make  for  error,  in  reference  to 
the  system  of  external  institutions ;  we  will  pro- 
ceed to  inquire,  for  a  few  moments,  into  the 
allowance  which  they  make  for  it  in  matters  re- 
lating more  particularly  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel. 

Here  we  shall  see   Calvinism   in  its   genuine 
character. 

Presbyterians*  represent  faith  as  a  condition  of 
salvation,  in  every  sense  of  the  term,  indispen- 
sable ;  in  other  words,  they  hold  that  God  will,  in 
no  case,  and  under  no  circumstances,  pardon  a 
fundamental  departure  from  truth  as  it  respects  the 
scheme  of  Christian  doctrine.  This  results,  ne- 
cessarily, from  the  principle  which  lies  at  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Calvinistic  creed;  that  salvation 
depends  upon  an  eternal,  unconditional  decree  of 
God :  of  an  interest  in  which  decree  faith  is  the 
sole  and  infallible  assurance.  Error  on  any  fun- 
damental point  of  Christian  doctrine  proves  that 
the  person  entertaining  it  is  not  a  subject  of  the 
decree  of  election ;  and,  not  being  a  subject  of 
that  decree,  he  is,  of  course,  without  hope.    Nay, 

*  I  mean  Calvinistic  Presbyterians. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWA^X*E    FOR    ERROR.  85 

SO  far  do  the  Calvinists  cany  Ihcir  ideas  of  llie 
necessity  of  faith,  as  to  consign  the  heathen  worhl 

lO  INDISCRIMINATE  PERDITION. 

This  I  shall  prove  beyond  the  possibility  of  dis- 
piite. 

"  Redemption  is  certainly  applied,  and  effectu- 
ally  communicated,  to  all  those  for  whom  Christ 
hath  purchased  it;  who  are,  in  time,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  enabled  to  believe  in  Christ  according  to 
the  Gospel."  "  They  who  having  never  heard 
the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ,  and  believe 
not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  di- 
ligent to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of 
nature,  or  the  laws  of  that  religion  which  they 
profess;  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other, 
but  in  Christ  alone,  who  is  the  Saviour  only  of 
his  body,  the  Church."* 

Let  us  consider  these  passages  in  detail. 

"  Redemption  is  certainly  applied,  and  effectu- 
ally communicated,  to  all  those  for  whom  Christ 
hath  purchased  it ;  who  are,  in  time,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  enabled  to  beheve  in  Christ  according  to 
the  Gospel."  Here  the  doctrine  of  partial  redemp- 
tion, contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  is 
unequivocally  set  forth.  Our  blessed  Saviour 
"  tasted  death  for  every  man."  "  He  is  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but 
also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."     Christ 

*  Westminster  Catechism,  questions  59,  6a  Constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States— Larger  Catechism,  ques- 
tions 59,  60.  Constitution  a)id  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reform.e*) 
Church  in  North-America— Larg-er  Catcchismj  questions  50,  60. 


84  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

hath  redeemed  all  men  from  the  curse  of  the  law; 
that  is,  he  hath  made  an  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  all  men ;  thus  taking  them  from  under  the  curse 
of  a  violated  covenant,  and  placing  them  in  a 
state  in  which  it  is  possible  for  them,  with  the  as- 
sistance of  Divine  grace,  to  work  out  their  salva- 
tion. Universal  redemption  is  one  thing — univer- 
sal salvntion  is  another.  All  men  are  redeemed ; 
all  men  are  placed  in  a  salvable  state;  but  final 
salvation  depends  upon  the  conduct  of  each  indi- 
vidual under  the  means  of  grace  which  he  may 
have  enjoyed.  In  opposition  to  this,  Christ  is 
represented,  in  the  passage  under  consideration, 
as  having  purchased  redemption  only  for  those  who 
will  be  finally  saved ;  that  is,  for  the  elect.  "  Re- 
demption  is  certainly  applied^  and  cffectualhj  com- 
municated to  ALL  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  pur- 
chased it.''''  In  other  words,  all  who  are  redeemed 
will  be  finally  saved.  The  elect  alone  are  re- 
deemed*— the  elect  alone  will  be  saved.  To 
complete  the  doctrine,  the  passage  goes  on  to 
state,  that  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased 
redemption,  "  are,  in  time,  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
enabled  to  believe  in  Christ  according  to  the  Gos- 
pel." Thus  the  heathen  Avorld  is  completely  cut 
cjfl';  belief  in  Christ,  according  to  the  Gospel, 
being  represented  as  the  invariable  characteristic 
of  the  redeemed.  And,  to  place  their  meaning 
beyond  the  reach  of  dispute,  the  framers  of  the 
Catechism  proceed,  in  the  veiy  next  passage,  to 


•  (( 


Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ  but  the  elect  only? 
I'l^sbyteiian  Conf(;8>sion  cf  i'althj  chap.  in.  sect.  6. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  85 

say — ''  They  who,  having  never  heard  the  Gospel, 
know  not  Jesus  Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him, 
cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to 
Irame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature." 

Will  it  be  said  that  the  design  of  the  passage  in 
question  is  simply  to  lay  down  the  fundamental 
doctrine,  that  salvation  is  only  through  the  death  and 
sufferings  of  Christ  ?  But  this  is  evidently  absurd. 
If  it  had  been  the  design  of  the  framers  of  the  Ca- 
techism merely  to  express  such  an  idea,  they  would, 
doubtless,  have  adopted  a  very  different  language : 
they  would  have  said  plainly,  that  there  can  be  no 
salvation  for  fallen  man  but  through  a  Redeemer. 
Instead  of  this,  they  declare  expressly,  that  such 
as  have  never  heard  of  Christ  cannot  possibly  be 
saved. 

Mark  the  language  of  the  Eighteenth  Article  of 
our  Church! — "  They  also  are  to  be  had  accursed 
that  presume  to  say,  that  every  man  shall  be 
saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  he  professeth,  so 
that  he  be  diligent  to  frame  his  life  according  to 
that  law,  and  the  light  of  nature.  For  holy  Scrip- 
ture doth  set  out  to  us  only  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  ivhereby  men  must  be  saved."  Here  all 
is  perfectly  clear  and  easy;  the  evident  design 
of  the  article  being  to  declare  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation through  the  blood  of  a  crucified  Saviour. 
They  are  condemned  who  presume  to  say  that 
man  may  be  saved  by  the  law  under  Avhich  he 
lives.  Doqs  the  article  assert  that  none  can  be 
saved  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ?  By  no 
means—It  merely  sets  forth  the  death  of  Christ;, 


36  ALLOWANCE  POU  ERROR.  ^ET.  V. 

as  the  only  meritorious  cause  of  justification;  as 
that  alone  by  which  we  may  be  saved.^  Accord- 
ini^ly  Episcopalians  believe  that  none  can  be  saved 
but  through  the  merits  of  Christ;  at  the  same 
time  that  many  will  be  saved  through  his  merits, 
who  have  never  heard  of  his  name.  But  the  lan- 
guage of  your  religious  standards  is  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent character,  expressly  consigning  those  who 
have  not  actually  heard  the  Gospel  to  indiscriminate 
perdition. 

Of  the  language  in  question  you  have  not  ven- 
tured to  take  the  slightest  notice.  And  how  do 
you  contrive  to  pass  it  by  in  silence  ?  You  repre- 
sent me  as  quoting  a  clause  from  the  Presbyterian 
Confession  of  Faith,  distant  an  hundred  pages 
from  the  sentence  which  I  really  did  quote ;  and 
having  thus  got  rid  of  the  passage,  you  enter  into 
an  argument  to  prove  that  the  language  of  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  is  precisely  the 
language  of  the  Eighteenth  Article  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.t    Passing  this  by  for  the  moment,  I  pro- 

*  At  tlie  time  the  Articles  were  formed,  there  were  persons  who 
contended  that  the  profession  of  Christianity  is  a  thin^  indifferent ; 
that  the  sole  criterion  of  the  favour  of  Heaven,  is  our  conformity  to 
the  particular  law  which  we  may  choose  to  embrace  ;  and  that  the  in- 
quiry will  be,  not  whether  we  range  ourselves  under  the  law  of  Christ, 
of  Moses,  of  Mahomet,  or  any  other  teacher ;  but  simply  how  far  we 
have  obeyed  tlie  particular  law  which  we  may  have  thought  proper  to 
adopt  as  our  rule  of  life.  It  is  this  most  pernicious  opinion,  Dr.  Lau- 
rence  informs  us,  that  the  Article  so  decidedly  opposes  ;  setting  forth 
the  law  of  Christ  as  that  which  we  are  bound  to  make  our  rule  of  life, 
and  his  merits  as  the  only  ground  of  salvation.  But  the  Article  goes  no 
further  tlian  this.  It  is  very  far,  indeed,  from  asserting  that  an  actual 
knowledge  of  the  person  and  character  of  Jesus  Christ  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  salvation. 

t  See  the  whole  of  this  master  explained  at  the  close  of  this  letter: 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  S7 

ceed  to  examine  the  section  of  your  Confession  of 
Faith  which  was  not  even  alluded  to  in  my  Letters, 
but  which,  nevertheless,  you  represent  me  as 
shamefully  altering,  in  order  to  make  it  speak  a 
language  that  might  suit  my  views. 

"  Much  less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  be  saved  in  any  other  way  whatso- 
ever, be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives 
according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of 
that  religion  they  do  profess."* 

In  order  to  perceive  the  true  meaning  of  these 
words,  we  must  take  them  in  connexion  with  a 
few  sentences  by  which  they  are  immediately 
preceded. 

"  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regene- 
rated and  saved  by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit,  who 
worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth. 
So  also,  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  in- 
capable of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  minis- 
try of  the  word.  Others  not  elected,  although 
they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word, 
and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  saved :  much  less  can  men 
not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  dili- 
gent to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of 
nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  pro- 
fess."t 

Now,  the  heathen  world,  I  venture  to  assert. 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faitl),  chap.  x.  sect.  4. 
t  Ibid,  chap.  s;.  .sect.  3,  4. 


88  ATJ.OWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

is  consigned,    in   this  passage,   to  indiscriminate 
perdition.     Let  us  examine  it  in  detail. 

"  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regene- 
rated and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit." 
To  speak  of  elect  infants,  is  to  admit  that  there 
are  reprobate  infants.  If  it  had  been  the  inten- 
tion of  the  framers  of  your  Catechism  to  say, 
tliat  God  will  mercifully  receive  all  persons  dying 
in  infancy,  they  would  have  stated  the  doctrine  in 
express  terms — "  All  persons  dying  in  infancy, 
being  elect,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit."  A  clause  of  this  kind  would 
have  been  full  to  the  purpose.  But  no  such  idea 
was  in  the  mind  of  the  Westminster  Divines  ;  they 
intended  to  say  that  there  are  reprobate  infants. 
Such,  indeed,  is  the  genuine  Calvinistic  doctrine  ; 
and  the  moment  we  admit  the  idea  that  salvation 
depends  upon  an  arbitrary,  unconditional  decree^ 
without  reference  to  any  thing  in  the  creature  mov- 
ing thereunto,  but  resolvable  solely  into  the  sove- 
reign pleasure  of  God,  there  is  no  sort  of  difficulty 
in  supposing  that  many  of  those  who  die  in  in- 
fancy will  be  eternally  lost.*     The  plain  matter 

»  The  distinction  between  elect  and  non-elect  infants  was  entirely 
unknown  to  the  primitive  Church  ;  not  having  been  introduced,  indeed, 
until  the  time  of  Calvin,  of  whose  peculiar  theory  of  predestination  it 
is  a  natural  result.  Accordingly,  Calvin  did  not  hesitate  to  draw  the 
conclusion,  although  it  appears  to  have  cost  him  some  effort  to  do  so.j 
Bcza,  the  disciple  and  successor  of  Calvin,  expressed  himself  on  this 

f  Scclnstitutcs  of  the  Christian  Rp!i};ion,  book  i  v.  ch.-ipter  xvi.  sections  17, 
IS,  2»  ;  where  Cilvin  appears  to  liave  a  constant  rcftrfnce  In  his  raind  to  the 
distinction  between  elect  and  non-elect  infants,  without,  however,  venturing 
formally  to  dt- tl«rc  it 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  89 

of  fact  is,  that  God  has  elected  some  infants,  and 
has  passed  by  others.  And  why  not  pass  by  in- 
fants as  well  as  adults  ?  For  adults  are  elected, 
or  reprobated,  without  reference  to  any  thing  in 
them  moving  God  to  choose  or  reject  them ;  but 
simply  in  the  exercise  of  sovereign  power.  After 
consigning  all  persons  dying  in  infancy,  with  the 
exception  of  an  elect  number,  to  perdition,  there 
can  be  no  great  difficulty  in  placing  the  whole 
heathen  world  out  of  the  reach  of  mercy.  The 
two  doctrines  are,  equally,  the  genuine  result  of 
the  cardinal  principle  of  Calvinism. 

But  let  us  proceed — '^  Elect  infants,  dying  in 
infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit.  So  also  are  all  other  elect 
persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word."  Here  it  is 
merely  said,  that  persons,  not  externally  called 
by  the  ministry  of  the  word,  may  be  of  the  num* 
ber  of  the  elect.  But  a  man,  without  being  thus 
called,  may  be  informed  of  Christ,  and  believe  in 
him.  Accordingly,  in  speaking  of  the  passage  in 
question,  you  say,  it  "  recognizes  the  possibility 
of  some  being  saved,  who  have  not  had  an  op- 
portunity of  hearing  the  Gospel  preached,''''  How 
very  cautious  is  this  mode  of  expression !  Does 
any  part  of  your  religious  standards  recognize  th^ 
possibility  of  salvation  to  those  who  have  nev^r,  '}J). 


subject  in  the  most  positive  and  unequivoeHl  lanj^uage.  In  a  publip 
conference  htld  with  tlie  Lulherans,  in  the  year  1586,  speaking  of  Bap- 
tism, he  s:t3s,  "  Which  many  millions  of  infants  receive,  who,  not- 
withstanding", aae  never  regenerated,  but  everlastingly  perish." 


90  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

any  shape,  heard  of  Christ  ?  The  positive  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel  is  not  the  only  way  of  bringing 
men  acquainted  with  the  person,  character,  and 
work  of  the  Saviour.  His  person,  character,  and 
work  may  be  known  to  such  as  have  never  had  an 
opportunity  of  listening  to  a  preacher  in  the  course 
of  their  lives. 

The  passage,  therefore,  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  indiscriminate  perdition  of  the  heatheri 
world. 

Besides,  it  must  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  con- 
tradict the  express  declaration,  "  they  who,  hav- 
ing never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ, 
and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they 
never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to 
the  light  of  nature."  Take  the  two  passages  to- 
gether, and  it  is  evident  that  the  Westminster 
Divines,  in  speaking  of  "  elect  persons  who  are 
incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  minis- 
try of  the  word,"  meant  to  designate  those  who^ 
cut  off  from  access  to  the  ministry  and  ordi- 
nances, nevertheless  hear  of  Christ,  and  believe 
in  him. 

The  Divines  in  question  were  far  from  intending 
to  declare,  that  persons  who  have  never  heard  of 
Christ  may  still  be  saved.  To  annex  such  a 
meaning  to  the  passage  under  consideration,  is 
not  only  to  do  violence  to  language,  but  it  is  to 
render  the  different  standards  of  your  society  in- 
consistent and  unintelligible. 

"  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regene- 
rated and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit.     Sch 


X-ET.  V-  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  SI 

(dso  are  all  other  elect  persons^  ivho  are  incapable  of 
being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  fVord.^"^ 

The  elect  persons,  here  spoken  of,  have  heard 
of  Christ,  or  they  have  not  heard  of  him.  If  they 
have  heard  of  him,  the  passage  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  indiscriminate  perdition  of  the 
heathen  world.  If  they  have  not  heard  of  him, 
it  is  directly  at  war  with  the  declaration  in  the 
Larger  Catechism  of  your  society :  "  They  who, 
having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus 
Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved, 
fee  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  ac- 
<:ording  to  the  light  of  nature." 

"  Others,  not  elected,  although  they  may  be 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  may 
laave  some  common  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
jet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  saved:  much  less  can  men,  not 
professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any 
other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature, 
and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  profess." 

Is  it  the  simple  design  of  this  passage  to  declare 
that  none  of  our  fallen  race  can  be  saved  in  any 
other  way  than  through  the  merits  of  Christ? 
Surely,  if  such  had  been  the  idea  intended  to 
be  conveyed,  a  very  different  mode  of  expression 
would  have  been  adopted.  No,  Sir,  the  West- 
minster Divines  had  no  such  object  in  view.  Let 
us  analyze  the  passage,  "•  Others,  not  elected, 
although  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry  of 
the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operp.- 


92  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  T. 

tions  of  the  Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to 
Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved."  Tlie 
persons  here  spoken  of,  hear  of  Christ,  but  do 
not  truly  come  to  him;  in  other  words,  do  not 
truly  embrace  him  by  faith;  and  are,  therefore, 
lost.  "  Much  less  can  men,  not  professing  the 
Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any  othet  way  ivhat- 
soever^  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law 
of  that  religion  they  do  profess." 

How  arc  the  words,  "  in  any  other  w^ay  whatso- 
ever," to  be  understood  here?     Their  meaning 
is  rendered  perfectly  plain  by  adverting  to  the  first 
part  of  the  paragraph—"  Others,  not  elected,  al- 
though they  may  be  outwardly  called  by  the  mi- 
nistry of  the  word,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to 
Christ;"  in  other  words,  never  truly  believe  in  him, 
"  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved."     Then  follows 
the  clause — "  Much  less  can  men,  not  professing 
the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any  other  way 
whatsoever;"  in  any  other  way  than  by  coming  to 
Christ,  that  is,  believing  in  him,  or  having  faith 
in  him ;  "  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law 
of  that  religion  they  do  profess."     The  passage, 
then,  does  unequivocally  m.ake  salvation  impossi- 
ble to  all  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ.     Such 
is  the  only  construction  which  the  words  will  bear. 
I  repeat  it,  if  the  Westminster  Divines  had  in- 
tended merely  to  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
through  the  merits  of  Christ,  they  would  have  used 
a  very  different  form  of  rxpre==*ion. 


/ 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  93 

The  meaning  of  the  whole  passage  may  be 
thus  briefly  expressed — Persons  not  elected,  al- 
though they  may  be  outwardly  called  by  the  mi- 
nistry of  the  word,  yet  not  having  true  faith  in 
Christ,  cannot  be  saved — Still  less  can  they  be 
saved  who  have  never  heard  of  his  name  ;  for  faith 
in  ;him,  under  such  circumstances,  is  impossible. 
— ^And  this,  besides  being  the  natural  interpreta- 
tij3n  of  the  passage,  is  the  only  one  which  can 
iliake  it  consistent  with  the  other  parts  of  your 
Mublic  formularies. 

/  But  I  have  entered  into  an  unnecessary  detail. 
'  The  single  passage,  so  often  quoted  from  the 
/  Westminster  Catechism,  puts  the  subject  perfectly 
at  rest ;  proclaiming  indiscriminate  perdition  to 
the  heathen  world  in  words  as  positive  and  unam- 
biguous as  language  can  supply.  "  They  who, 
having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus 
Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved, 
be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  ac- 
cording to  the  light  of  nature,  or  the  law  of  ]that 
religion  which  they  profess,"* 

You  have  been  so  prudent  as  not  to  notice  this 
passage ;  although,  to  avoid  noticing  it,  you  were 
under  the  hard  necessity  of  having  recourse  to  an 
artifice  which  must  injure  you  in  the  estimation  of 
every  correct  and  delicate  mind.f 

But  the  doctrine  of  the  indiscriminate  perdition 
of  the  heathen  world  is  the  doctrine  even  of  your 
own  Letters. 

*  Westminster  Catechism,  question  60. 
f  See  the  concluding  part  of  this  letter. 


i 

•J4  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

"  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  Presbyterians  understand 
the  Gospel  too  well  to  speak  of  uncovenanted  mercy 
at  all.  Fallen  creatures  know  of  no  mercy  but 
that  which  is  promised  or  secured  by  the  covenant 
of  grace,  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."* 

Now,  you  expressly  assert  that  the  heathen 
are  aliens  from  the  covenant  of  grace.  "  These 
writers  exclude  us  from  the  covenanted  mercy  of 
God.  They  represent  mercy  as  extended  to  Pres- 
byterians, in  the  same  manner,  and  on  the  same 
principles,  as  to  the  heathen  ;  that  is,  not  in  vir- 
tue of  any  covenant  engagerrwnt;  but  on  the  foot- 
ing of  general,  unpledged  mercy."t 

Well,  Sir,  fallen  creatures  know  of  no  mercy 
but  that  which  is  promised  or  secured  by  the  cove- 
nant of  grace :  but  mercy  is  not  secured  to  the 
heathen  by  virtue  of  any  covenant  engagement ; 
therefore  there  is  no  mercy  for  the  heathen;  in 
other  words,  the  heathen  must  be  indiscriminately 
lost.  And  as  your  religious  standards  expressly 
declare  all  but  the  members  of  the  visible  Church 
to  be  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  it 
follows,  upon  the  principle  which  you  have  laid 
down,  that  there  can  be  no  possibility  of  salvation 
out  of  that  Church.  You  tell  us  that  there  is  no 
mercy  but  covenanted  mercy — the  standards  of 
your  society  declare  that  there  is  no  covenanted 
title  to  mercy  out  of  the  visible  Church — it  fol- 
lows, inesistibly,  that  none  but  the  members  of 
the  visible  Church  can  be  saved. 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  57,  58. 
f  Contmaation  of  Letters,  p.  36,  "7 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR,  95 

Besides,  you  give  us  to  understand^  that  it  is 
faith  alone  that  puts  a  man  in  a  state  of  covenant 
with  God. — "  Seals,"  according  to  your  idea,  "  are 
the  constituted  meaas  of  recognizing  a  covenant 
transaction  supposed  to  have  previously  taken 
place  in  secret,  when  the  person  receiving  the 
seal  embraced  the  Gospel."*  In  embracing  the 
Gospel,  then,  we  enter  into  covenant  with  God.f 


*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  59^  60. 

f  Whenever  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  citing  your  strange  opinions, 
I  think  it  proper  immediately  to  contrast  them  with  the  express  lan- 
guage of  those  public  standards  to  which  you  are  canonically  bound  to 
conform.  Salvation,  you  tell  us,  is  secured  by  covenant  engagement 
to  all  who  have  faith  in  Christ,  whetlier  members  of  the  visible  Church 
or  not.a  Compare  this  with  the  language  of  your  religious  society — 
"  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible 
Church,  and  so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  till  they  pro- 
fess their  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him.*  "  Out  of  the  visible 
Church,  and  so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise."  And  after 
a  man  professes  faith  in  Christ,  so  as  to  satisfy  the  governors  of  the 
Church  that  he  really  possesses  it,  still  he  is  out  of  the  visible  Church, 
and  a  stranger  to  the  covenant  of  promise,  until  he  is  initiated  into 
the  one,  and  thereby  placed  within  the  other,  by  the  sacred  ordinance 
of  baptism. 

Besides,  as  I  have  more  than  once  shown  already,  you  are  completely 
at  war  with  yourself;  for  you  tell  us  that  "  the  visible  Church  is  that 
houseliold  of  God  to  which  his  gracious  promises  and  his  life-giving 
spirit  are  vouchsafed  ;"c  that  the  existence  of  unaffected  piety  out  of 
this  Church  is  a  difficulty  of  no  easy  solution  ,d  and  that  if  persons 
not  belonging  to  the  visible  Church,  are  saved,  it  must  be  in  some 
extraordinary  and  unknoivn  way.^ 
Thus  inconsistent  are  the  different  parts  of  your  writings. 
The  promises  of  the  Gospel  are  made  to  the  visible  Church — The 
promises  of  the  Gospel  are  made,  not  to  the  visible  Church,  but  to  thp 
pious. 

Salvation  is  to  be  attained  by  fallen  creatures  only  in  tlie  way  of  co- 

o  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  59.  60.    6  Larger  Cat,eclihru,  rueslion  ICo. 
<  Letters,  p.  342.  d  Ihj,]    p.  ^45., 

c  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  44. 


96  ALLOWANCE   FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

In  the  same  way,  you  tell  us,  that  "  salvation  is 
promised,  that  is,  secured  by  covenant  engage- 
ment, to  all  who  sincerely  repent  of  sin,  and  un- 
feignedly  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."*  And 
when,  in  setting  forth  the  utmost  extent  of  your 
charitable  ideas,  you  say,  that  men  may  be  in 
covenant  with  God  who  have  never  seen  a  Church 
officer  in  theh  lives;  still,  you  make  it  necessary 
that  they  should  have  been  so  situated  as  to  hear 
of  Christ,  and  to  believe  in  him.f 

Thus,  Sir,  you  consign  the  heathen  world  to 
Indiscriminate  perdition. 

There  is  no  mercy  but  such  as  is  secured  by 
covenant  engagement — Mercy  is  secured  by  co- 
venant engagement  only  to  those  who  believe  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ— of  course,  they  who,  "  hav- 
ing never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ, 
and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they 
never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to 
the  light  of  nature."! 

This,  as  I  have  repeatedly  observed,  is  the  true 
Calvinistic  doctrine.  In  addition  to  the  proof 
drawn  from  the  Westminster  standards,  let  me  in- 
troduce to  you  a  few  passages  from  Presbyterian 
authors.  The  first  author  to  whom  I  shall  call 
your  attention,  is  the  very  learned  Dr.  Wither- 
spoon.     "  Thus  I  have  endeavoured  both  to  ex- 

venant.  Salvation  may  be  attained  in  an  extraordinary  or  uncovenanted 
way.  But  I  purpose,  in  a  future  letter,  to  bring  your  numerous  con- 
tradictions  into  one  view. 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  58,  60.  f  Ibid.  p.  59 

Presbyterian  Catechism,  question  60 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOU  ERROR.  ^1 

plain  and  confirm  the  assertion  in  the  text,  that 
there  is  no  salvation  in  any  other  but  Christ. 
There  is,  however,  one  question  upon  it  which  I 
would  willingly  pass  over  in  silence,  but  that  the 
omission  of  it  might,  to  some  intelligent  readers, 
weaken  the  conclusion,  and  make  them  reckon 
the  subject  incompletely  handled.  The  question 
is,  whether  an  objective  revelation  and  explicit 
discovery  of  Christ,  and  what  he  hath  wrought,  is 
necessary  to  salvation  ?  or  if  his  undertaking  may 
not  be  the  ground  of  acceptance  for  many  who 
never  heard  of  his  name."*  This  question  Dr., 
Witherspoon  thus  resolves — "  To  whomsoever  the' 
true  God  is  revealed  in  any  measure,  as  merciful 
and  gracious,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression,  and 
sin;  however  obscurely  he  points  out  the  merito- 
rious cause  of  pardon,  if  they  believe  his  word 
and  accept  of  his  mercy,  they  shall  be  saved. 
As  to  any  others,  if  they  are  in  absolute  ignorance 
of  the  true  God,  we  must  say,  that  there  doth 
not  appear,  from  Scripture,  any  ground  on  which 
to  affirm,  that  the  efficacy  of  Chrisfs  death  extends 
to  themy\  The  author  proceeds  to  observe — '•  A 
change  must  be  v»rought  in  the  heart  and  temper 
of  the  sinner,  so  great  as  to  be  termed  a  new  crea- 
tion and  a  second  birth.  Now,  I  would  beg  leave 
to  ask,  how  and  where  is  this  to  be  expected  ?  It 
cannot  surely  proceed  from  the  influence  of  fabu- 
lous deities,  or  be  the  effect  of  idolatrous  rites."{ 


*  ^Vitherspoon's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  ^7Z^r-^.  t  'ih'ul.  p.  274 

i  Ibid.  p.  278. 
icy 


98  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROB.  LET.  V. 

The  learned  author  expressly  tells  us,  that  the 
efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ  extends  to  none 
who  are  in  ignorance  of  the  true  God — He  ex- 
pressly tells  us,  that  thefre  can  be  no  mercy  for 
those  to  whom  the  meritorious  cause  of  pardon  is 
utterly  unknown — He  expressly  tells  us,  that  that 
state  of  heart,  which  is  essential  to  salvation,  can 
never  exist  where  fabulous  deities  are  believed  in, 
or  idolatrous  rites  prevail.  The  heathen  world, 
then,  must  be  totally  and  indiscriminately  lost. 
In  a  word,  "  none  can  be  saved  who  have  never 
heard  of  Christ,  however  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature." 

Let  me  next  refer  you  to  the  authority  of  the 
Christian's  Magazine.  The  editor  of  this  work 
represents  faith  in  Christ  as  a  condition  of  salva- 
tion indispensable  in  the  most  strict  and  absolute 
sense :  in  other  words,  he  makes  faith  in  Christ 
so  necessary,  that  God  will,  under  no  circumstan- 
ces, pardon  the  want  of  it;  so  necessary,  that, 
without  it,  salvation  is  utterly  impossible. 

"  Faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  he  is  exhibited  in 
the  Gospel,  is  the  indispensahle  condition  of  sal- 
vation."* 

The  editor  of  the  Magazine  censures  Dr.  Ho- 
bart  for  representing  communion  widi  the  true 
Church,  through  a  duly  authorized  ministr}^,  as 
an  indispensable  condition  of  salvation.  It  is  pro- 
per to  remark,  that  Dr.  Hobart  intended  simply  to 
say,  that  communion  with  the  true  Church,  through 

*  CUr'uitian's  Magazine,  vol.  i.  p.  98. 


.r.ET.  V.  ALLOWANCE    FOR   ERROR.  99 

a  duly  authorized  ministry,  is  a  condition  with 
which  man  has  no  right  to  dispense.     It  never  en- 
tered into  his  view  to  limit  the  mercy  of  God;  on 
the  contrary,  he  expressly  lays  down  the  general 
principle,  that  all  who  sincerely  desire,  and  endea- 
vour to  know  aud  do  the  will  of  God,  will  be  par- 
doned and  accepted  by  him,  whatever  violations 
of  his  commands  they  may  commit  through  invo- 
luntary error.*     And  Dr.  H.  makes  particular  pro- 
vision for  cases  of  departure  from  the  lawful  mi- 
nistry of  the  Christian  Church.     But  Dr.  Mason 
chooses  to  consider  the  term  indispensable  as  ca- 
pable of  being  used   only  in  an  absolute  sense: 
and,  under  such  idea,  indulges  in  the  following 
train  of  remark.     "  This   sweeping  sentence  of 
proscription  is  softened  by  representing  it  as  '  not 
inconsistent  with  that  charity  which  extends  mercy 
to  all  who  labour  under  involuntary  error.'     But 
we  have  no  ground  to  expect  this  very  precarious 
mercy  but  the  charity  of  Dr.  H.  and  his  brethren. 
Warrant  from  the  word  of  God  they  have  produced 
none,    and  have  none   to  produce.     No:  if  the 
condition  be  indispensable^  they  who  reject  it  must 
perish.     And  if  they  who  reject  it  may  still  be 
fsaved,  it  is  not  indispensable:  othermse  the  defi- 
nition might  run  thus ;  an  indispensable  condition 
is  that  which  may  be  dispensed  with."t 

If  Episcopacy  be  an  indispensable  condition  of 

*  When  error  is  excusabte,  and  when  not,  we  pretend  not  to  de  - 
termine.  God  alone  can  decide  in  every  individ'irfl  case.  We  leave  i* 
to  him. 

+  Christian's  Magazine,  vol.  i.  p.  94,  95 


iOO  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  T. 

future  happiness,  the  only  alternative  is  that  of 
Episcopacy  or  perdition.  Admit  Episcopacy  to  be 
an  indispensable  condition,  and  it  irresistibly  fol- 
lows that  tliey  who  reject  it  are  \\ithout  hope. 
There  is  no  escape.  "  The  very  idea  of  an  escape, 
HOWEVER  TO  BE  EFFECTED,  is  repugnant  to  that  of 
an  indispensable  condition."  No  allowance  can  be 
made  for  error.  Doctor  Hobart  and  his  brethren, 
in  making  allowance  for  error,  have  acted  wholly 
without  warrant  from  the  word  of  God.  Now  let 
this  be  compared  with  the  observations  of  Doctor 
Mason  on  the  subject  of  faith.  "  The  inquir}^, 
whether  a  man  shall  go  to  Ilt^aven  or  to  Hell,  the 
Scriptures  have  fixed  to  this  point — whether  he 
was  a  beUever  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus,  as  he  is  exhibited  in  the  Gospel, 
is  the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation."* 

Faith  in  Christ  is  the  indispensable  condition  of 
salvation :  an  indispensable  condition  is  one  that 
can,  under  no  circumstances,  be  dispensed  with ; 
therefore,  without  faith  in  Christ,  salvation  is  im- 
possible. 

Will  it  be  said  that,  in  the  passages  which  have 
been  cited  from  the  Christian's  Magazine,  Dr. 
Mason  is  speaking  exclusively  of  persons  to  whom 
the  Gospel  has  been  proclaimed  r  On  the  con- 
trary— He  expresses  himself  in  terms  the  most 
general  and  absolute.  He  makes  no  provision  for 
the  case  of  the  heathen.  The  plain  amount  of 
ivhat  he  says,  is,  that  none  can  be   saved  who 

*  Chrjsliau's  Magazine,  vol.  i.  p.  98'- 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  101 

Imve  never  heard  of  Christ;  and  I  am  well  per- 
suaded that  Dr.  Mason  will  not  hesitate  to  ac- 
knowledge that  such  is  his  deliberate  opinion. 
Certain  it  is,  that,  in  refusing  to  acknowledge  it, 
he  would  be  guilty  of  direct  opposition  to  those 
standards  of  doctrine  to  which  he  is  canonically 
bound  to  conform. 

I  might  go  on  to  furnish  you  with  extracts  from 
the  writings  of  many  other  Divines  on  this  subject; 
but  it  cannot  be  necessary.  And  I  have  particu- 
larly called  your  attention  to  the  declarations  of 
modern  authors,  that  it  may  be  seen  that  the  de- 
cided language  of  the  Westminster  Divines  con- 
tinues to  be  used,  in  all  its  plainness,  to  the  pre- 
sent day. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  Westminster  stand- 
ards unequivocally  present  the  idea  that  there  are 
infants  in  hell.  It  has  been  shown  that  they  ex- 
pressly consign  the  heathen  world  to  indiscriminate 
perdition;  and  that  the  same  language  is  held,  on 
this  point,  by  distinguished  Calvinistic  authors. 

It^  has  been  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  in- 
discriminate perdition  of  the  heathen  is  the  un- 
questionable doctrine  of  your  own  Letters.  You, 
in  no  place,  express  a  belief  that  the  heathen 
may  be  saved:  on  the  contrary,  in  setting  (orth 
the  utmost  extent  of  your  charity,  you  P<2ver  fail 
to  limit  the  possibility  of  mercy  to  s«ch  as  may 
have  heard  of  Christ.  Besides,  you  tell  us,  ex- 
pressly, that  mercy  is  not  secured  to  the  heathen 
in  the  way  of  covenant  engagement;   and  that 


i02  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

there  can  be  no  mercy  but  such  as  is  thus  se- 
cured.* 

Let  U3  now  attend  to  the  language  of  those  ad- 
vocates of  Episcopacy  to  whom  you  have  felt 
yourself  at  liberty  to  apply  so  many  severe  and 
degrading  epithets. 

1.  What  do  they  say  on  the  subject  of  faith? 
They  agree  with  their  Presbyterian  brethren,  that 
it  is  the  leading  condition  of  salvation,  and  the 
basis  of  all  other  Christian  graces  and  virtues; 
but  they  do  not  think  themselves  authorized  to  as- 
sert that  there  are  no  possible  circumstances  in 
^vhich  God  will  extend  mercy  to  such  as  labour 
under  fundamental  error.  Let  the  subject  be  il- 
lustrated by  a  reference  to  the  great  doctrine  of 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  doctrine  is  ab- 
solutely fundamental  to  the  Christian  system :  such 
as  reject  if  are  in  a  great  and  most  dangerous 
error;  and,  as  a  general  rule,  must  be  considered 
to  be  without  hope.  J3ut  here  I  stop,  not  feeling 
myself  at  liberty  to  say  that  there  are  no  possible 
circumstances  in  which  God  will  pardon  the  error 
of  the  Socinian,  and  receive  him  to  mercy.  On 
the  contrary,  I  would  lay  down  the  general  prin- 
ciple.^ that  all  who  sincerely  desire  and  endeavour 
to  kitow  and  do  the  will  of  God,  will  be  crowned 
with  hi»  blessing;  and  I  am  by  no  means  disposed 
to  assert,  ikat  real  piety  and  fundamental  error 
may  not  be   co-existent.     Much  more   disposed 

'  Contiouati^n  of  Letters,  p.  37,  57,  58. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  103 

should  I  be  to  unite  with  Bishop  Horsley  in  the 
following  most  excellent  observations,  which  do 
equal  honour  to  the  head  and  heart  of  that  illus- 
trious man. 

"  Though  truth,  in  these  controversies,  can  be 
only  on  one  side ;  he  will  indulge,  and  he  w  ill  avow, 
the  charitable  belief  that  sincerity  may  be  on  both. 
And  he  will  enjoy  the  reflection,  that,  by  an  equal 
sincerity,  through  the  power  of  that  blood  which 
was  shed  equally  for  all,  both  parties  may  at 
length  find  equal  mercy.  In  the  transport  of  thi== 
holy  hope,  he  will  anticipate  that  glorious  con- 
summation, when  faith  shall  be  absorbed  m 
knowledge,  and  the  fire  of  controversy  for  ever 
quenched.  When  the  same  generous  zeal  for 
God  and  truth,  which  too  often,  in  this  world 
of  folly  and  confusion,  sets  those  at  widest  vari- 
ance, whom  the  similitude  of  virtuous  feelings 
should  the  most  unite,  shall  be  the  cement  of  an 
indissoluble  friendship;  when  the  innumerable 
multitude  of  all  nations,  kindred,  and  people, 
(why  should  I  not  add  of  all  sects  and  parties] 
assembled  round  the  throne,  shall,  like  the  first 
Christians,  be  of  one  soul  and  one  mind ;  giving 
praise,  with  one  consent,  to  him  that  sitteth  on 
the  throne,  and  to  the  lamb  that  w^as  slain  to  re- 
deem them  by  his  blood."* 

Will  you  carry  your  charity  to  this  extent  ?  Far, 
very  far  from  it !     You  w  ill  not  admit  the  possi- 


»  Charge  to  the  Clergy  of  St.  Albans,  in  defence  of  the  dlvin-'y  of 
Ciaht,  against  the  attack  of  Dr.  Piirgtler 


101  ALLOWANCJ?:  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V, 

bility  of  salvatiorij  in  any  circumstances,  to  such 
as  may  be  in  fundamental  error;  for,  you  make 
salvation,  as  I  have  already  observed,  to  depend 
on  the  eternal  and  unconditional  decree  of  Godf 
of  an  interest  in  which  faith  is  the  sole  and  in- 
fallible assurance.  Of  course,  fundamental  error 
proves  the  individual  entertaining  it,  not  to  be 
within  the  limits  of  the  predestinating  decree. 

2.  What  opinion  do  Episcopalians  entertain 
with  respect  to  those  who  are  in  utter  ignorance 
of  the  Gospel?  Do  they  consign,  them  to  indis- 
criminate perdition?  God  forbid!  They  shrink 
vith  horror  from  the  thought.  Let  me  briefly 
state  their  ideas  on  this  subject. 

Salvation  is  only  through  the  death  of  Christ  ^ 
3ut  the  merits  of  his  death  may  extend  to  those 
vho  have  never  heard  of  his  name. 

The  edicacy  of  our  blessed  Saviour's  passion  is 
set  forth  in  the  sacred  volume  as  of  boundless  ex- 
lent.  "  He  died  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." 
*'  He  tasted  death  for  every  man."  "  He  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all."  By  his  death,  there- 
fore, all  men  are  placed  within  the  reach  of  mercy. 
To  say,  that  a  Redeemer  was  indispensable  to 
tlie  restoration  of  the  human  race  to  a  state  of 
favour  with  God,  is  one  thing; — to  say,  that  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  salvation  to  have  positively 
heard  of  that  Redeemer,  is  quite  another. 

Man,  by  transgression,  had  sunk  into  a  state  of 
c-^ptivity  to  sin  and  death.  In  this  state  he  must 
have  remained  had  not  a  Mediator  inteiposed ;  it 
bemg  utterly  impossible  for  him,  by  any  effort  of 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  105 

his  own,  to  avert  the  penahy  of  the  violated  law. 
Jesus  Christ,  by  his  siifierings  and  death,  expiat- 
ed the  guilt  of  transgression ;  thus  procuring  an 
act  of  grace  to  be  passed  in  favour  of  fallen  man. 
This  act  is  to  be  traced  simply  to  the  mercy  of 
God.  But  the  act  of  pardon,  although  freely  and 
graciously  passed,  prescribes  certain  conditions 
to  be  performed  by  man.  The  performance  of 
the  conditions,  however,  does  not  entitle  him  to 
claim  the  promised  reward  as  his  due;  but  is, 
simply,  indispensable  to  his  being  put  in  actual 
possession  of  the  blessings  to  which  the  sufferings 
of  the  Saviour  constitute  the  only  title. 

Where  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed,  obedience  to 
the  commands  of  Christ,  wrought  through  faith, 
is  the  condition  of  salvation :  where  the  Gospel  is 
not  proclaimed,  men  will  be  judged  by  the  parti- 
cular law  under  which  they  may  have  been  placed. 
All  are  subject  to  the  law  of  conscience ;  and  this 
law,  where  no  revealed  system  has  been  vouch- 
safed, will  be  the  standard  of  decision.  "  As 
many  as  have  sinned  without  law,"  says  St.  Paul, 
*'  shall  also  perish  without  law ;  and  as  many 
as  have  sinned  in  the  law,  shall  be  judged  by  the 
law.'*"  Or,  to  use  the  emphatic  words  of  our 
blessed  Saviour  himself — "  that  servant,  which 
knew  his  Lord's  will,  and  prepared  not  himself, 
neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten 
with   many  stripes:   But  he  that  knew  not,  an^ 

'   Romans  ii.  12. 

14 


106  ALLOWANCE  FOR  EKROK.  LET*  V. 

did   commit    things  worthy  of  stripes,    shall  be 
beaten  with  few  stripes."* 

Such  are  the  ideas  entertained  by  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy,  with  respect  to  the  salvation 
of  the  heathen.  They  believe  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  was  shed  for  all  mankind;  extending  not 
less  to  such  as  have  never  heard  of  his  name^ 
than  to  those  who  live  under  the  full  light  of 
his  Gospel.  The  uninstructed  pagan  will  be  tried 
by  the  law  of  that  reasonable  nature  which  God 
has  given  to  the  whole  human  race ;  and  a  mer- 
ciful Judge  will  make  all  proper  allowance  for 
tlie  difficulty  of  the  circumstances  in  which  he 
may  have  been  placed.  Compare  this  with  the 
stern  sentence  of  your  public  formularies — "  They 
who  having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not 
Jesus  Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be 
saved,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature."t 

Will  you  still  inveigh  against  the  contracted 
spirit  of  your  opponents  ;  or  boast  of  the  enlarged 
and  liberal  character  of  your  own  mind? 

3.  As  to  the  case  of  infants,  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy  have  no  hesitation  in  beheving  that 
all  persons,  dying  before  the  commission  of  any 
actual  crime,  will  be  saved.  You,  on  the  con- 
trary, have  subscribed  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  which  unequivocally  gives  us  to 
imderstand  that  there  are  infants  in  hell.     You 


•  Luke  xii.  4r,  4». 

t  Larjj^er  Catechism,  question  60 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  107 

profess  to  be  a  devoted  admirer  of  Calvin,  who 
divides  infants  into  the  two  classes  of  elect  and 
reprobate ;  representing  the  latter  as  brought  into 
the  world  simply  that  they  may  be  for  ever  de- 
stroyed.* 

On  the  subject  of  charity,  Sir,  your  lips  should 
be  closed  for  ever, 

4.  Let  me  say  a  few  words  upon  the  case  of 
the  modern  Jews. 

The  standards  of  your  society  consign  them 
to  indiscriminate  perdition.  For  example — The 
Westminster  Catechism  cuts  off  the  heathen  from 
the  very  possibility  of  mercy,  on  the  simple  ground 
that  they  have  not  faith  in  Christ.  Now,  the  hea- 
then cannot  believe  in  Christ ;  having  never  heard 
of  him.  How,  then,  can  there  be  a  possibility  of 
escape  for  the  Jews  ?  It  cannot  be  said  of  the  Jews 
that  they  have  never  heard  of  Christ :  on  the  con- 
trary, they  have  actually  rejected  him.  If  the  hea- 
then, who,  simply,  have  not  heard  of  Christ,  must 
universally  perish,  the  Jews  can  have  no  hope ; 
their  case  being  much  stronger  than  that  of  the 
heathen,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  the  same  ab- 
solute impossibility  to  plead  in  their  excuse.f 

♦  This,  surely,  is  not  too  strong  a  mode  of  expression.  If  persons 
dying  in  infancy  perish,  they  must  come  into  the  world  under  an  abso- 
lute necessity  of  perishing;  and  if  they  come  into  the  world  under 
an  absolute  necessity  of  perishing,  they  must  be  created  simply  that 
they  may  be  deslroyed.  All  this  follows,  at  once,  from  the  admitted 
fact,  that  we  are  not  free  agents  until  we  are  capable  of  distinguishing 
between  right  and  wrong. 

f  This  mode  of  reasoning  proves  also  that  the  standards  of  your  so- 
ciety deny  the  'vei^i/  posdbility  of  mercy  to  Arians  and  Socinians,  and  all 
-other  heretics,  who  may  labour  under  any  fundamental  error.    If  "  (h^y, 


108  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

What  are  the  ideas  entertained  on  this  particu- 
lar subject  by  the  men  of  whose  charitableness  of 
temper  vou  appear  to  think  so  very  unfavourably? 

Do  they  hold  the  opinion  that  the  Jews  who 

who,  having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ,  and  believe 
not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  dilig-ent  to  frame  their 
lives  accordini^  to  the  light  of  nature,"  it  is  very  certain  that  no  circum- 
stances Will  induce  Cod  to  purdon  such  as,  living  under  the  light  of  the 
Gospel,  nevertheless  fail  to  receive  Christ  in  his  true  character. 

The  heathen  labour  under  an  absolute  impossibility  of  believing  in 
Christ;  and  yet  they  indiscriminateUi  perish.  Jews,  Arians,  and  Socmi- 
ans  do  not  believe  in  Christ,  and  have  no  absolute  impossibility  to  plea4 
in  excuse.  Therefore,  Jews,  Arians,  and  Socinians  must  indiscrimi" 
natehj  perish.     The  conclusion  is  inevitable. 

See,  Sir,  what  a  system  of  divinity  you  have  embraced ! 
There  are  infants  in  hell. 

The  countless  myriads  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ,  constituting 
by  far  the  largest  portion  of  the  human  race,  will  be  indiscriminately 
lost. 

All  the  Jews  who  have  lived  since  the  coming  of  Christ,  with  all  the 
Arians  and  Socinians  that  have  ever  existed,  will  perish  eternally. 

Of  tliis  immense  multitude  not  an  individual  will  be  spared.  God 
vrill  shut  up  his  bowels  of  compassion ;  making  no  allowance  for  the 
force  of  prejudice,  for  the  circumstances  of  education,  or  even  forigpio- 
ranee  tliat  is  absolutely  invincible. 

The  severe  and  contracted  opinions  which  now  prevail  among  Calvinis- 
tic  Presbyterians,  have  regularly  descended  to  them  from  their  Puri- 
tanic ancestors.  It  was  one  of  the  charges  preferred  by  Travers  against 
the  excellent  and  liberal  Hooker,  "  that  he  doubted  not  hut  God  v>as 
merciful  to  save  inany  of  our  forefathers,  living  heretofore  in  popish  su- 
perttiti»n ,-  forasmuch  as  they  sinned  ignoruntly.''^  Travers  maintained 
the  utter  impossibility  of  salvation  within  the  limits  of  the  Papal 
Church.  So  gloomy  and  bitter,  indeed,  was  the  spirit  of  the  Puritans 
on  this  point,  that  the  person  who  preached  the  funeral  sermon  of 
the  Queen  of  Scots,  was  reviled  for  not  "  being  positive  far  her  dam- 
nation^** 

Indeed,  Sir,  you  should  have  abstained  from  reproaching  the  advo- 
rates  of  Episcopacy  with  the  narrowness  and  bigotry  of  their  temper 
and  principles. 

•  HookevV  Ecclcsiaslieal  Polity,  \>j],  j.  \,vi^%  57_,  58.  61.  €L\  6s,  OvfnrA  fidirion. 
1703. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCi:  FOR  ERROR,  109 

have  lived  in  Christian  countries  since  the  incar- 
nation of  our  blessed  Saviour,  must,  without  excep- 
tion, perish?     God  forbid!     Salvation,  as  I  have 
more  than  once  observed,  can  be  only  through  the 
blood  of  a  crucified  Redeemer.     They  to  whom 
.Tesus  Christ  is  proclaimed,  are  required,  as  a  con- 
dition of  eternal  life,  to  believe  in  him ;  and  such 
as  reject  him  must  perish.     This  is  undoubtedly 
true  as  a  general  rule.     The  question  is,  whether 
there  can  be  any  circumstances  in  which  a  failure 
to  receive  Christ  in  his  proper  character  will  be 
pardoned.     Your  religious  society  takes  the  ground 
that  there  can  be  no  such  circumstances;  for,  in 
the  very  strongest  case,  that  of  persons  who  use 
the  utmost  diligence  in  improving  all  the  advan- 
tages they  possess,  and  fail  to  believe  in  Christ 
from  invincible  ignorance,  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chism expressly  declares  salvation  to  be  impos- 
sible.    Of  course,  there  are  no  circumstances  in 
which  a  Jew  may  be  pardoned  and  received  to 
mercy. 

Your  opponents  hold  on  this  subject  a  very  dif- 
ferent language. — The  Jews  are  in  a  great  and 
most  lamentable  error,  for  which  they  must  render 
account ;  but  God  forbid  that  we  should  undertake 
to  limit  the  Divine  mercy,  by  saying  that  no  allow- 
ance will  be  made  for  the  particular  circumstances 
in  which  the  Jews  are  placed,  and  that  they  must 
indiscriminately  perish  for  ever.  No — we  most  sin- 
cerely believe  that  God  will  make  great  allowance 
for  those  strong  prejudices  w^hich  the  Jews  of  the 
present  day  imbibe  from  their  tenderest  infancy. 


110  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

iie  is  a  merciful  being,  and  remembers  that  we 
are  but  dust. 

"  The  times  of  this  ignorance,"  says  the  Apos- 
tle, speaking  of  the  corrupt  and  idolatrous  Gen- 
tiles, "  God  winked  at" — In  other  words,  God 
will  not  judge  the  Gentiles  with  the  strictest  seve- 
rity: He  will  make  allowance,  to  a  certain  degree, 
even  for  their  idolatry  :  or  rather  he  will  suffer  it  to 
be  somewhat  excused  by  the  ignorance  in  which 
they  were  sunk.  And,  in  the  same  way,  we  have 
reason  to  believe  that  God  will  judge  many  of  the 
Jews  in  mercv  in  reference  to  the  almost  uncon- 
querable  prejudices  of  their  education. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that,  in  holding  this  lan- 
guage, we  undervalue  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel.  Far  from  it ! — Those  doctrines  are 
the  power  of  God  unto  salvation :  such  as  reject 
them  lose  all  covenanted  title  to  mercy  ;  and,  as  a 
general  rule,  must  perish.  All  we  contend  for  is, 
that  a  merciful  God  will  make  allowance  for  the 
errors  of  his  creatures,  and  that  there  may  be 
rases  in  which  a  failure  to  receive  Christ  in  his 
true  character  may  be  so  far  excused  by  ignorance, 
by  prejudice,  by  frailty,  as  not  to  draw  after  it  in- 
evitable destruction.  Thus  far  we  are  warranted 
in  going  by  the  word  of  God. 

Let  the  candid  reader  compare  these  two  sets  of 
opinions ;  and,  if  he  has  not  learned  to  be  sur- 
prized at  nothing  which  he  may  meet  with  in  this 
strange  world,  I  think  he  will  be  filled  with  some 
degree  of  wonder  when  he  is  told,  that  the  advo- 
cates of  the  former  are  never  weary  of  declaiming 


tET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  Ill 

against  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the  naiTow 
and  unciiaritable  spirit  oC  tlie  advocates  ot"  the 
latter. 

In  the  second  letter  of  your  work  you  have  made 
an  attack  upon  my  character  as  a  clergyman  and  a 
man,  which,  in  gross  and  wanton  injustice,  has, 
scarcely,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  its  parallel  in  the 
annals  of  controversy. 

I  have  promised  to  lay  the  case  circumstantially 
before  the  public ;  and  I  now  proceed  to  tlie  exe- 
cution of  the  task. 

In  my  Letters,  addressed  to  you,  I  took  the 
liberty  of  stating,  that  the  standards  of  your  reli- 
gious society  consign  the  heathen  world  to  indis- 
criminate perdition;  and  I  quoted  a  passage  as 
being  express  to  the  purpose.  "  They  who  having 
never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ, 
and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they 
never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according 
to  the  light  of  nature." 

It  is  true,  I  marked  the  passage  as  belonging  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith  ;  whereas  it  really  belongs 
to  the  Larger  Catechism  of  your  society.  Of  this 
mistake  you  avail  yourself,  to  conceal  from  your 
own  people  the  true  doctrine  of  their  articles,  and 
to  heap  upon  me  an  odium  which  you  knew  to  be 
unmerited.  Some  excuse  might  be  made  for  you^ 
if  I  had  not  marked  the  very  page  in  which  the 
cited  passage  is  contained.  This  circumstance 
takes  from  you  all  apology  for  one  of  the  most 
cruel  slanders  that  ever  dishon^nncd  t^e  pres'^. 


112  ALLOWANCE   FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

Let  US  descend  to  particulars. 

In  pages  Gil,  63,  and  64  of  the  Continuation  of 
your  Letters,  you  thus  write — "  Mr.  How,  in  his 
zeal  to  prove  that  Presbyterians  are  even  more 
uncharitable  than  such  high-churchmen  as  him- 
self and  others,  endeavours  to  throw  great  odium 
on  a  clause  in  the  10th  chapter  of  our  Confession 
of  Faith^  which  is  in  the  following  words — ^  Much 
less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian  religion, 
be  saved  in  any  other  waij  ivhatsoever,  be  they 
never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to 
the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion 
they  do  profess ;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that 
they  may,  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested.' 
All  that  these  words  are  intended  to  assert,  is, 
that  none  of  our  fallen  race  can  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  than  through  Christ.  The  slightest 
perusal  is  sufficient  to  ascertain  that  this  is  their 
real  meaning." 

"  The  doctrine,  then,  of  the  passage  alluded  to 
by  Mr.  Hoiv^  is  simply  this.  That  it  is  false  and 
pernicious  to  teach  that  men  may  be  saved  in  any 
other  way  than  through  the  atoning  sacrifice  and 
sanctifying  spirit  of  Christ.  A  position  in  which, 
one  would  imagine,  all  professing  Christians,  ex- 
cept Socinians  and  Universalists^  must,  without 
hesitation,  concur.  But  Mr.  Hoiv  exceedingly  dis- 
likes it,  and  is  determined  to  hold  it  up  to  detesta- 
tion and  abhoiTence,  as  asserting  that  none  \^i^ 
have  not  been  favoured  with  the  preaching  of  the  ^ 
Gospel  can  possibly  be^  saved ,  and  as  consigning 


f.teT.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  113 

the  whole  heathen  world  to  inevitable  perdition.^' 
By  what  management  does  he  attempt  to  do  this  ? 
By  faithfully  transcribing  the  clause,  and  laying  it 
before  his  readers  in  a  fair  and  unmutilated  form  ? 
Not  at  all.  Had  he  done  this,  his  purpose  would 
have  been  defeated.  Every  reader  would  instantly 
have  recognized  in  the  language  of  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  a  perfect  coincidence  with  that  of  the 
Scriptures.t  But  by  a  contrivance,  which,  it  will 
hereafter  be  seen,  is  not  unusual  with  this  gentle- 
man, he  first  essentially  alters  the  passage,  and 
then  presents  it,  regularly  marked  with  inverted 
commas,  as  if  it  were  the  real  language  of  the  ar- 
ticle. What  that  language  in  fact  is,  you  have 
already  seen,  Mr.  How  declares  that  it  is  as  fol- 
lows— '  They  who  having  never  heard  the  Gospel, 
know  not  Jesus  Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him, 
cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to 
frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature.'^ 
Having  thus  taken  out  of  the  passage  an  important 
clause  which  it  does  contain,  and  added  to  it  what 
it  does  not  contain,  he  holds  it  up  to  his  readers 
as  consigning  to  inevitable  perdition  the  whole 
heathen  world.  And,  assuming  this  as  the  ac-^ 
knowledged  construction,  he  vehemently  declaims 
against  it  as  '  uncharitable,'  '  cruel,'  a  '  position 

*  The  tenth  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  has: 
been  fully  examined,  and  proved  to  consign  the  heathen  world  to  indis- 
criminate perdition.  It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  languag-e  of  the 
chapter  with  the  doctrine  that  salvation  may  be  possible  to  those  who 
have  never  heard  of  Christ. 

f  See  particularly  Act-^  iv,  12.  John  xiv.  6.  John  xvii. :;.  Gal,  i,  6,  7,  8. 

i  l<etters,  p,  25. 

1,^ 


114  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V, 

of  deep  loncfl  horror,'  and  calculated  to  '  fill  the 
rational  mind  with  dismay." 

You  charge  me  with  a  most  dishonourable  at- 
tempt to  mutilate  your  religious  standards  in  order 
to  fix  upon  them  an  odious  sense ;  and,  to  make 
good  your  accusation,  you  introduce  a  passage  of 
those  standards  distant   an  hundred  pages  from 
that  which  I  had  cited.     My  quotation  is  literally 
correct ;    there   is   not    the   variation   even   of  a 
comma.     It  is  a  serious  business  to  make  an  at- 
tack upon  private  character.     No  one,  properly 
impressed  with  a  sense  of  moral  obligation,   or 
actuated  by  that  delicacy  which  belongs  to  virtu- 
ous minds,  will  ever  indulge  in  remarks  which 
touch  the  fair  fame  of  his  neighbour,  until  he  has 
taken  all  practicable  methods  to  ascertain  their 
truth.     When  you  looked  into  the  tenth  chapter 
of  vour  Confession  of  Faith,  and  found  there  a 
passage  so  very  different  from  that  introduced  in 
my  Letters,  you  should  at  least  have  paused  be- 
fore you  proceeded  to  the  conclusion,  that  I  had 
corrupted  it  to  answer  a  dishonourable  purpose. 
The  pause  of  a  moment  would  have  led  you  to 
examine  the  page  quoted  by  me.     If,  upon  ex- 
amining that  page,  in  one  edition  of  your  reli- 
gious standards,  you  had  not  found  the  passage  in 
question,  you  should  have  examined  another  edi- 
tion; and  had  your  search  still  proved  fruitless, 
you  should  have  consulted  me.^     I  was  on  the 

»  The  quotation  la  the  29th  page  of  my  Lettere  is  from  the  edition 
by  lionsal  Sc  Nilcs,  1803.  This  edition  contains  the  diflTcrent  Presby- 
terian Standards,   the  Confession  qf  Faith,   tlie  Larger  aod  Smaller 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  115 

spot;  and  you  had  called  upon  me  in  relation  to 
a  comparatively  unimportant  matter,  to  ask  my 
authority;  observing,  however,  a  scrupulous  si- 
lence upon  the  point  under  consideration.  Can  it 
be  imagined  that  you  were  ignorant  of  the  clause 
of  your  religious  articles  which  1  quoted  in  the 
25th  page  of  my  Letters  ?  This,  surely,  is  a  most 
inadmissible  supposition.  Besides,  I  had  marked 
the  quotation  with  so  much  particularity  as  to 
render  mistake  impossible. 

But,  not  content  with  accusing  me  of  a  disho- 
nest alteration  of  the  language  of  your  religious'? 
articles,  you  proceed  to  hold  me  up  to  public 
execration,  as  a  traitor  to  the  Church  in  which  I 
minister.  The  injury  which  you  have  thus  done 
me,  as  many  of  your  people  will  never  read  this 
reply,  is,  in  no  small  degree,  irreparable. 

In  pages  04  and  65  of  the  Continuation  of  your 
Letters,  you  use  the  following  language — "  But 
the  most  wonderful  part  of  the  story  is  yet  to  be 
told.  It  is  a  fact,  that  one  of  the  Thirty-nme  Ar- 
ticles of  Mr.  Hoiv^s  own  Church,  contains  pre- 
cisely the  same  declaration  that  he,  with  so  much 
violence,  condemns  in  our  Confession  of  Faith. 
The  article  referred  to  is  the  eighteenth^  which  is 
in  the  following  words :   '  They  also  are  to  be  had 

Catechism,  and  the  Directory  for  Worship ;  hut  it  is  marked  on  the 
back,  simply,  "  Confession  of  Faith."  I  referred,  accordingly,  to  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  p.  140.  The  passacfe  is  in  that  pag-e, 
word  for  word :  it  happens  to  be  a  part,  however,  not  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  but  of  the  Larg'er  Catechism. 

Such  is  the  mistake  that  has  exposed  me  to  so  many  severe  accnsu- 
tions. 


iliy  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V* 

accursed,  that  presume  to  say,  that  every  man 
shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  he  pro- 
fesseth,  so  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame  his  life 
according  to  that  law  and  the  light  of  nature.  For 
holy  Scripture  doth  set  out  unto  us  only  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  men  must  be  saved.' 
The  only  difference  worthy  of  attention  is,  that 
the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  pronounces 
the  doctrine,  that  men  may  be  saved  otherwise  than 
by  Christ,  'pernicious,'^  and  to  be  'detested,'^  Where- 
as, the  Episcopal  article  more  harshly  declares, 
the  persons  who  hold  it  are  to  be  had  accursed. 
This  article  Mr.  How  has  solemnly  subscribed, 
and  the  doctrine  contained  in  it  he  has  canoni- 
caUy  sworn  to  preach  and  support:  and  yet  he 
declares  '  he  has  no  power  to  express  the  feelings 
with  which  this  most  detestable  doctrine  fills  his  bo- 
som.' To  what  can  we  ascribe  this  conduct?  I 
am  unable  to  think  of  it  without  the  deepest  asto- 
nishment and  horror!"* 

The  Eighteenth  Article  of  our  Church  has  been 
compared  with  the  Presbyterial  standards.  They 
have  been  proved  to  speak  a  very  different  lan- 
guage ;  our  article  simply  setting  forth  the  doctrine 
of  salvation  through  a  crucified  Redeemer,  while 
your  standards  inexorably  pronounce  damnation 
upon  the  whole  heathen  world.  Presbyterian  au- 
thorst  express  themselves  most  unequivocally  upon 
this  subject.  The  very  words  of  Dr.  Witherspoon 
liavc  been  quoted ;  and  the  Christian's  Magazine, 

*  Miller's  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  64,  65. 

r  Or  ratliT  r'ah-''i:\!r-  a'ltiinrs  pvnrfss  thpnisfl'.Ti  9r>. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR,  T17 

and  your  own  Letters,  have  been  clearly  shown  to 
exckide  the  heathen  world  from  all  possibility  of 
jnercy. 

But  my  concern,  at  present,  is  with  the  attack 
which  you  here  make  upon  my  character  as  a  mi- 
nister of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  as  an  honest 
man. 

The  bulk  of  your  readers  will  unquestionably 
suppose  that  I  detest  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
through  a  crucified  Redeemer;  and  that  I  make 
no  scruple  in  publicly  declaring  my  detestation  of 
it.  They  will  regard  me,  of  course,  as  a  violator 
of  my  canonical  vows,  and  as  a  man  lost  to  all 
sense  of  virtue.  You  have  so  expressed  yourself, 
that  your  readers  can  draw  no  other  conclusion : — 
nay,  you  have  made  a  direct  and  positive  asser- 
tion, leaving  no  conclusion  to  be  drawn  upon  the 
subject.  And,  to  mark  your  own  strong  sense  of 
the  enormity  of  my  conduct,  you  declare,  that  you 
are  "  unable  to  think  of  it  without  the  deepest 
astonishment  and  horror."  This  is  a  sort  of  lan- 
guage applicable  only  to  a  case  of  the  very  grossest 
depravity.  You  have,  therefore,  unequivocally 
charged  that  depravity  tipon  me. 

You  know,  perfectly  well,  the  opinions  which  I 
entertain  on  the  subject  of  the  divinity  and  satis- 
faction of  Christ.  I  had  expressed  myself  so  fully 
in  my  Letters  to  you,  as  to  leave  no  possibility  of 
mistake.  "  The  meritorious  cause  of  justification 
is  the  blood  of  Christ.  In  all  that  man  can  do  or 
believe,  there  is  no  merit.  By  grace  he  is  saved. 
But  conditions  are  prescribed  to  him,  upon  the 


118  ALLOWANCE  FOR  ERROR.  LET.  V. 

performance  of  which,  his  salvation,  through 
Christ,  depends.  And  even  these  conditions  he 
cannot,  of  himself,  fulfil.  The  death  of  Christ, 
being  an  atonement  for  sin,  brings  all  into  a  salva- 
ble  state ;  but  those  only  will  be  saved  who  com- 
ply with  the  conditions  prescribed;  and  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  so  far  given  to  all,  as 
to  enable  all  to  comply."  "  How  are  we  saved? 
By  free  grace — by  an  act  of  unmerited  mercy. 
How  are  we  judged  ?  By  the  deeds  done  in  the 
body.  Nothing  in  man  can  lay  a  meritorious 
ground  for  acceptance  with  God ;  such  ground  be- 
ing exclusively  laid  in  the  sufferings  of  the  Savi- 


our.^' 


I  found  fault  with  the  Presbyterial  standards,  not 
for  setting  forth  the  doctrine  of  salvation  through 
a  crucified  Redeemer,  but  for  peremptorily  con- 
sio-ning  the  heathen  to  indiscriminate  perdition. 
Of  this  you  are  fully  aware ;  and  yet  you  expressly 
tell  your  readers  that  I  speak  of  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  through  the  merits  of  Christ  in  terms  of 
the  utmost  detestation. 

You  comj)lain,  very  seriously,  of  the  harsh  epi- 
thets which  your  opponents  frequently  permit 
themselves  to  apply  to  you.  It  is  true,  we 
have  spoken  of  your  conduct  with  pointed  dis- 
approbation. Justice  demanded  that  we  should 
do  so;  and,  moreover,  there  can  be  no  difficulty 
in  proving  that  you  have  indulged,  to  say  the 
least,  in  an  equally  liberal  use  of  severe  express 

•   Ifou'B  Letters  to  MHler,  p.  26,  27. 


LET.  V.  ALLOWANCE    FOR    ERROR»  119 

sions.  But  all  this  is  pretty  much  a  matter  of 
course  in  every  controversy.  Persons  who  feel 
strongly  are  apt  to  speak  strongly.  There  are  cer- 
tain limits,  however,  within  which  the  man  of 
principle  is  most  anxious  to  confine  himself:  He 
Is  particularly  circumspect  in  the  language  which 
he  uses  when  the  character  of  his  opponent  is  to 
be  deeply  affected  by  it;  so  guarding  his  words, 
that  there  may  be  no  possibility  of  putting  a  wrong 
construction  upon  them.  You  have  brought  a  di- 
rect charge  against  me,  which  you  knew  to  be  to- 
tally unfounded  ;  and  a  rhargp,  which,  if  true, 
must  mark  me  out,  in  the  view  of  every  honest 
man,  as  a  worthless  hypocrite. 

But  I  forbear  from  those  animadversions  which 
the  nature  of  the  case  would  most  fully  authorize, 
and  leave  the  subject  to  your  own  silent  and  dis- 
passionate reflection. 


(     120    ) 

LETTER  VI. 
CHARGE   OF  AGGRESSIOJ^. 

Sir, 

The  most  superficial  reader  of  your  Letters  must 
perceive  a  constant  desire  in  you  to  address  the 
prejudices  and  passions  of  the  community.  You 
never  cease  to  tell  us  how^  peaceful  your  own  tem- 
per is  ;  or  to  represent  your  opponents  as  actuated 
by  a  spirit  full  of  persecution  and  strife.  You 
charge  us  with  carrying  on  a  system  of  unprovoked 
attack  upon  our  Presbyterian  brethren:  indeed, 
if  you  are  to  be  credited,  we  have  dExNounced  and 
PROSCRIBED*  them  with  all  the  wantonness  of  ma- 
lice. You  even  point  to  the  year  in  which  this 
system  of  proscription  was  formally  commenced, 
and  to  the  publications  in  which  it  is  contained.f 

"  The  formal  and  open  commencement  of  this 
system  may  be  dated  in  the  year  1804.  Previous 
to  that  period,  indeed,  several  sermons,  and  other 
fugitive  pamphlets,  had  evinced  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  some  individuals,  to  revive  and  urge 
certain  claims,  as  unfounded  in  Scripture  as  they 
are  offensive  to  hberal  minds.  But  in  that  year 
there  appeared,  in  the  city  of  New-York,  the  first 


*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  15 — 35. 

I  The  Companion  for  the  Altar,  and  the  Companion  for  the  Festivals 
and  Fasts  of  tlie  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  d* 
America,  published  in  the  year  1804.>  by  tlie  U&v.  Dr.  Hobart. 


LET.   VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSIOxN.  121 

of  a  series  of  larger  puljjications,  which  evidently 
had  for  their  object  a  system  of  more  bold  and 
decisive  proscription  than  had  been  ventured  upon 
for  a  considerable  time  before.*" 

This  charge  of  denunciation  and  proscription 
had  been  urged  in  your  former  work  with  great 
vehemence.!  The  Christian's  Magazine,  also, 
had  been  very  loud  and  clamorous  upon  the  same 
subject.  Indeed,  every  effort  had  been  made  to 
preclude  a  dispassionate  consideration  of  the  real 
merits  of  the  case,  by  holding  up  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  to  public  scorn,  as  wanton  distur- 
bers of  religious  peace. 

This  matter  has  been  placed  in  its  true  light,  I 
flatter  myself,  in  the  remarks  offered  by  Dr.  Bow- 
den  and  myself  upon  your  first  Series  of  Letters ; 
^nd  Dr.  Hobart,  in  defending  himself  against  the 
violent  attack  made  upon  him  in  the  Christian's 
Magazine,  has  entered  into  a  detailed  view  of 
facts,  which  cannot  iliil,  I  should  suppose,  to  sa- 
tisfy every  unprejudiced  mind. J 

But,  without  taking  the  slightest  notice  of  the 
explanations  which  have  been  given,  you  renew 
the  charge  with  augmented  virulence ;  and,  as  it 
is  of  a  very  odious  nature,  I  shall  be  pardoned  for 
examining  it  with  some  degree  of  minuteness. 

May  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  then,  be 
fairly  accused  of  carrying  on  a  system  of  bfnun- 
eiATioN  and  proscription  airahisL  their  brethren 


■'  ContinimtTon  of  I.ttlcrs,  p.  15.  j  Letters,  p.  19,  350,  55.^. 

+  IIobiTTt's  .Apology,  T.ct<.er  V. 


122  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI. 

of  Other  denominations?     Have  they   displayed 
an  intolerant  and  persecuting  spirit  ? 

Let  these  questions  be  candidly  examined : 
And  take  care,  Sir,  that  I  do  not  prove  you  guilty 
of  the  crime  with  which  you  so  violently  charge 
your  opponents ;  guilty  of  it,  too,  while  engaged 
in  the  very  act  of  imputing  it  to  others. 

1.  A  stranger,  upon  reading  your  book,  would 
naturally  suppose  that  the  advocates  of  Episco- 
pacy had  represented  the  religious  society  to  which 
you  belong  as  unfit  to  be  tolerated,  and  had  open- 
ly taken  the  ground  that  it  should  be  suppressed 
by  law^  What  less  could  subject  them  to  the 
charge  of  wanton  denunciation  and  proscription  r 
But  is  such  the  real  state  of  the  fact  ?  So  far 
from  it,  that  we  do  nothing  more  than  claim  the 
right  of  thinking  for  ourselves  on  the  subject  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church. 

We  believe  that  there  is  a  divinely  instituted  so- 
ciety, called  the  Church,  of  which  all  men  are 
commanded  to  become  members  ;  that  a  ministry 
is  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  this  society  ; 
that  Jesus  Christ  established  a  ministry  consisting 
of  distinct  and  subordinate  grades,  giving  to  the 
highest  grade  the  exclusive  power  of  ordaining; 
and  that  ordination,  of  course,  can  be  valid  only 
when   regularly  performed,   by  virtue  of  his  au- 
thority.    Such,  therefore,  as  have  laid  aside  or- 
dination by  the  highest  grade  of  the   ministry, 
and  substituted  in  its  place  ordination  by  the  se- 
cond grade,  have  lost  the  sacerdotal  otlice ;  and. 
this  office  being  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION. 


125 


the  Church,  they  can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  in 
a  Church  state. ^ 

These  opinions  we  have  had  the  presumption 
to  entertain,  and  to  defend.  Will  it  be  believed 
that  such  is  the  amount  of  what  you  call  a  system 
of  denunciation  and  proscription  against  our  dis- 
senting brethren  ?  Especially  when  it  is  stated 
that,  in  contending  for  what  we  deem  the  true 
constitution  of  the  Christian  Church,  we  make 
the  greatest  allowance  for  the  mistakes  of  our  fel- 
low men  ;  expressly  declaring  our  belief,  that  God 
will  receive  all  who  sincerely  desire  and  endea- 
vour to  know  and  do  his  will,  whatever  violations 
of  his  commands  they  may  commit  through  invo- 
luntary error? 

And  what  will  the  reader  say,  upon  being  told 
that  the  very  man  who  thinks  fit  to  indulge  in  such 
a  style  of  remark  upon  his  Episcopal  brethren, 
not  only  carries  Presbyterial  ordination  to  the  pre- 
cise extent  to  which  they  carry  Episcopal;  but, 
in  speaking  of  the  anti-Calvinistic  doctrine,  which 
they  embrace,  takes  the  liberty  of  calling  it  "  a 
gloomy  system  of  possibilities  and  peradventures ; 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  likely  to  land  the  believer 
in  the  abyss  of  the  damned,  as  in  the  paradise  of 
God?"t  Surely,  if  you  may  say  to  us,  that  our 
religious   system   is,  in  itself,  quite  as   likely  tg 


*  Indeed,  Dr.  Hobral,  ui  the  works  wliich  have  been  so  m\icli  found 
fault  with,  went  no  further  tlian  to  represent  Episcopacy  as  a  divine 
institution,  without  wliicli  the  Church  cannot  e\\st  in  a  sound  and 
perfect  state. 

f  C'jntiiiuntion  of  Letters,  p.  339. 


124  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LtT.  VI. 

carry  us  to  Hell  as  to  Heaven;  we  may  say  to  you, 
without  danger  of  giving  offence,  that,  in  laying 
aside  the  divinely  instituted  method  of  ordination, 
we  consider  you  as  having  lost  the  sacerdotal 
power.  Pray,  Sir,  in  which  case  would  you  con- 
sider your  neighbour  as  taking  the  greater  liberty 
with  you;  if  he  should  tell  you  that  he  conceived 
an  important  opinion  entertained  by  you  to  be  er- 
roneous ;  or,  that  the  whole  scheme  of  your  doc- 
trine was  of  so  horrid  a  nature  as  to  be  quite  as 
likely  to  plunge  you  into  the  abyss  of  the  damned, 
as  to  fit  you  for  the  paradise  of  God? 

It  is  true,  you  do  qualify  this  rough  and  terrible 
portrait  by  admitting  that  the  consequences,  which 
you  draw  from  the  anti-Calvinistic  system,  are 
not  to  be  imputed  to  the  advocates  of  the  system, 
w^ho  view  it  in  a  very  different  point  of  light;  and 
you  even  express  a  belief  that  many,  who  reject 
the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism,  may  finally  reach 
the  kin2:dom  of  Heaven,* 


*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  339,  340. 

It  is  possible  for  an  anti-Calvinist  to  be  saved.  He  is  better  off, 
then,  in  your  view,  than  the  heathen,  who  infallibly  perishes ;  or  tlie 
reprobate  infant  ordained  from  the  womb  to  tl\c  pains  of  eternal  death. 
But  let  us  not  calculate  too  largely.  The  hope  which  you  express  on 
this  subject,  extends  to  those  only  who  reject  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
**  in  WORDS."  Truly,  you  are  one  of  the  most  cautious  of  men.  After  all 
you  have  said  of  the  possibility  of  salvation  to  those  who  dissent  from 
the  dogmas  of  Calvin,  it  turns  out  that  r^thing  is  permitted  but  a  ver- 
niT.  dissent.  A  substantial  dissent,  then,  from  the  peculiarities  of 
Cdvinism,  partial  redemption,  unconditional  election  and  reprobation, 
and  irresistible  grace,  must  draw  after  it  inevitable  perdition.  In  fact, 
it  is  scarcely  going  too  far  to  say,  that  you  confine  all  hope  of  salva- 
tion to  yourself  and  your  Calvinistic  friends.  They  who  have  never 
^c^rd  of  Cliris'.  will  be  indis'.yimiaatdy  lo.^t.    Tb'.ts  you  cut  off  by  fyr 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGtiRESSlON.  125 

But  I  have  already  very  particularly  inquired 
into  the  allowance  which  our  respective  societies 
make  for  error ;  and  have  shown  that  we  go  to  an 
extent  on  this  subject,  which  you  unequivocally 
condemn. 

Thus  Episcopalians  simply  claim  the  right  of 
thinking  for  themselves  on  the  subject  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  and  of  decently  expressing  and  de- 
fending their  opinions. 

In  what,  then,  consists  their  offence  ?  Surely,  it 
will  be  said,  these  men  must  have  been  guilty  of 
some  outrageous  attack  upon  their  fellow  Christi- 
ans, or  an  author  of  common  honesty  would  never 
have  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  apply  to  them  such 
opprobrious  epithets.  Denouncers!  Proscribers!* 
Wanton  disturbers  of  religious  peace  !  Men  with 
whom  it  is  difficult  to  live  upon  terms  of  Christian 


tbe  largest  portion  of  the  human  race  from  the  very  possibility  of  mercy* 
For  the  whole  body  of  Jews,  Arians,  and  Socinians,  tliere  is  no  hope. 
And  when  you  come  to  express  your  charitable  ideas,  in  reference  to 
those  who  adopt  all  your  views  of  divine  truth,  except  in  the  single  ar- 
ticle of  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism,  you  take  care  to  limit  that  hope 
to  such  as  reject  Calvinism  "  in  w^ords  ;"  thus  clearly  presenting  the 
idea,  tliat  a  substantiai  rejection  of  the  system  must  be  fatal  to  the 
soul.  Say  not  that  I  misrepresent  you — Every  word  here  uttered 
is  supported  by  the  standards  of  your  religious  society,  and  by  your 
own  unequivocal  language.  At  all  events,  if  you  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  none  can  be  saved  who  siibstantiaUy  reject  the  Calvinistic 
scheme,  it  follows,  that  you  really  know  not  how  to  express  yourself  in- 
telligibly upon  the  plainest  subject.  The  fact,  I  fear,  is,  that  you  wished 
to  appear  very  liberal ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  felt  the  necessity  of  be- 
ing extremely  guarded;  so  as  to  pass  for  a  great  deal  in  ti/ov/s,  while, 
upon  a  critical  investigation,  you  will  be  found  to  steer  clear  of  the 
error  of  setting  the  gates  of  Heaven  more  open  than  is  consistent  with 
the  views  of  that  gloomy  class  of  theologians  to  which  you  belong. 
*  Letters,  p.  19,  "^50,  352.    Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  15. 


126  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSIOls.  LET.  Vi. 

iiUercouise  !*  Miserable  bigots,  who  are  to  be 
viewed  ill  the  same  hght  with  the  worshippers  of 
images,  or  the  blind  advocates  of  the  supremacy 
and  infallibility  of  the  Pope  If — What  have  we 
done  to  merit  all  this  at  your  hands  ? 

2.  Perliaps  we  have  broached  some  new  and 
strange  doctrine,  never  before  heard  of  in  the 
Christian  world;  and  this  bold  and  unauthorized 
conduct  you  have  felt  it  a  duty  to  mark  with  the 
most  decided  reprobation. 

The  reader,  disappointed  in  his  first  conjecture, 
will  naturally  adopt  this,  as  furnishing  the  true 
reason  of  the  extreme  harshness  of  the  epithets 
in  which  you  have  thought  proper  to  indulge  your- 
self. What  will  be  his  surprise,  when  he  is  told, 
that  the  institution  for  which  we  contend,  is  as 
old  as  Christianity  itself! — Even  the  most  learned 
opponents  of  Episcopacy  are  obliged  to  admit  that 
it  prevailed  in  the  very  first  ages  of  the  Gospel. 
Campbell  and  Chauncy  date  its  rise  at  so  early  a 
period  as  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Blondel 
and  the  Westminster  Divines  carry  the  period  of 
its  commencement  up  to  the  middle ;  Doddridge 
and  Salmasius,  to  the  beginning  of  that  age. 
Baxter,  Chamier,  and  Du  Moulin,  acknowledge 
that  Episcopacy  prevailed  even  in  the  first  cen- 
tury, and  before  the  death  of  the  last  of  the 
Apostles. 

Thus,  then,   upon  the  statement  of  our  oppo- 
nents themselves,  we  have  contended  for  no  new 

'  Letter?,  p.  19.  t  Ib'^-  P-  '^^y  21- 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  127 

doctrine;  but  one  rendered  venerable  by  a  |3re- 
scription  of  seventeen  hundred  years.* 

The  Church  of  England,  when  she  threw  off 
the  yoke  of  Popery,  unequivocally  took  the  ground 
of  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy ;  forming 
her  offices  expressly  upon  this  principle.  This 
appears  from  the  Ordinal,  which  prescribes  three 
distinct  offices  for  the  ordination  of  Bishops,  Pres- 
byters, and  Deacons;  and  which  positively  de- 
clares that  divers  orders  of  ministers  were  es- 
tablished by  God  himself.f  Accordingly,  the 
Church  of  England  has  always  insisted  upon 
the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  to  a  valid 
ministry;  and  has  never  suffered  any  persons, 
without  such  ordination,  to  officiate  as  clergymen 
within  her  limits.  J     Thus,  Mosheim,  speaking  of 


*  None  pretend  to  date  the  rise  of  Episcopacy  at  a  later  period  than 
the  fourth  century.  You  acknowledge  that  it  existed  in  that  age.  Thus, 
according  to  your  own  account,  Episcopacy  took  its  rise  within  some- 
thing more  than  two  hundred  years  from  the  Apostolic  age  ;  and  can 
plead  a  prescription  of  nearly  fifteen  centuries. 

t  "  Almighty  God,  who,  by  thy  Divine  Providence,  hast  appointed 
bivehs  oKDERs  OF  MiNisTEus  in  thy  Church."  The  prayer  represents 
Deacons  as  one  of  the  orders  of  ministers  appointed  by  God.§ 

*'  Almighty  Cod,  giver  of  all  good  things,  who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit, 
hast  appointed  diveus  ordehs  of  mikistehs  in  thy  Churcli."|j 

"  Almighty  God,  giver  of  all  good  things,  who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit, 
hast  appointed  divehs  onDEns  op  mixisteks  in  thy  Church."^  The 
prayers  in  the  above  offices  represent  Bishops  and  Priests  as  divinely 
appointed  orders  of  the  ministry;  and  the  power  of  ordination  is 
given  by  the  Ordinal  to  the  Bishop  alone, 

^  "  No  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest, 
or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  func- 

§  Office  for  ordering  of  Dcacr.ns.  y  Office  for  onk lins  of  Priosls. 

iy  Office  lor  ftrde-in.?  of  Bishops. 


128  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI, 

the  Church  of  England,  says,  "  it  constantly  in- 
sisted on  the  divine  origin  of  its  government  and 
disciphne,  and  scarcely  allowed  the  other  reformed 
communities  the  denomination  of  a  true  Church."* 
Upon  the  same  principles  has  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  this  country  invariably  acted. 
Without  going  back  to  the  earliest  period  of  her 
history,  let  me  remind  you  of  the  conduct  pur- 
sued by  Doctors  Johnson,  Cutler,  Chandler,  and 
many  other  worthy  and  learned  men  in  the  State 
of  Connecticut ;  who,  convinced,  upon  mature 
examination,  of  the  Divine  institution  of  Episco- 

tions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereunto, 
according-  to  the  form  hereafter  following-,  or  hath  had  EnscoFAE  con- 

8ECKATI0X  OR  0ni>IXATI0>-."-}- 

•  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  iv.  p.  437. 

Mosheim  should  have  said,  that  the  Church  of  Eng-land  constantly 
insisted  upon  the  divine  origin  of  the  different  orders  of  the  ininistry. 
She  never  held  tliat  tliere  is  any  particular  form  of  government  and 
discipliric  which  is  exclusively  of  divine  rig-ht.  Upon  this  point,  indeed, 
she  carried  on  a  long-  dispute  with  the  Puritans,  who  contended,  that 
"  God  hatli  delivered  in  Scripture  a  complete,  particular,  immutable 
form  of  Church  Polity."  Mosheim,  however,  meant  to  say,  that  the 
Church  of  England  has  constantly  insisted  upon  the  divine  institution 
of  distinct  and  subordinate  orders  of  the  priesthood,  and  upon  the  ne- 
cessity of  Episcopal  ordination  to  a  valid  ministry.  He  has  expressed 
himself  inaccurately  in  using-  the  terms  "  government  and  discipline  ;*' 
for,  although  these  include  the  form  of  the  ministry,  yet  they  include 
many  other  things  which  are  not  particularly  fixed  by  any  divine  law, 
but  are  left  to  be  regulated  by  human  prudence.  Such  are  the  cere- 
monies of  public  worship,  the  forms  of  discipline,  and  even  the  parti- 
cular method  of  organizing  that  ecclesiastical  power  by  which  canons 
are  passed  for  the  government  of  the  Church.  Of  these  no  specific  and 
immutable  system  is  drawn  out  in  Scripture  ;  but  man  is  left  to  exer- 
cise a  sound  discretion ;  provided,  always,  that  nothing  be  done  con- 
trary to  the  word  or  the  spirit  of  tlie  sacred  volume. 

t  Preface  to  the  book  of  Consecration  of  Bishops,  a"nd  of  onicrin^'  of  Priests 
^nd  Deacons 


i,ET.   VI.  CHARGE    O^    AGCiRESSION.  129 

|;acy,  ceased  to  act  as  congregational  clergymen, 
in  vvhicli  capacity  tliey  had  officiated  Ioy  some 
years,  went  to  England  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing a  valid  commission,  and  became  most  zeal- 
ous and  powerful  advocates  for  the  cause  of  pri- 
mitive truth  and  order.  From  the  time  of  Dr. 
Johnson  to  the  present  day,  the  subject  of  Epis- 
copacy has  been  discussed  in  this  country  by  a 
succession  of  able  writers.  Previous  to  the  revo- 
lutionary war  the  Episcopalians  here  were  desti- 
tute of  Bishops.  This  was  an  intolerable  griev- 
ance; and  the  American  Church  struggled  lono* 
and  unsuccessfully  to  get  it  redressed.  Her  ap- 
plications to  the  English  Bishops  gave  rise  to  an 
animated  controversy,  in  which  the  whole  subject 
of  the  constitution  of  the  ministry  was  entered 
into,  and  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  strenu- 
ously and  unanswerably  maintained. 

So  far,  then,  from  broaching  any  new  and  ex- 
traordinary doctrine,  the  institution  for  which  we 
contend,  even  by  the  admission  of  its  most  learned 
antagonists,  has  prevailed  for  the  long  space  of 
seventeen  hundred  years.  And  not  one  of  its  op- 
ponents pretends  to  date  its  rise  at  a  less  distant 
period  than  the  fourth  century ;  within  two  hun- 
dred years  of  the  very  age  of  the  Apostles.  To 
all  which,  it  is  to  be  added,  that  the  Church  of 
Kngland  has  put  the  principle  in  question  at  the. 
very  foundation  of  her  reformation  from  popery ; 
that  the  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country,  ^vhen 
the  revolutionary  war  had  placed  us  in  a  state  of 
independenro.  formally  adopted  the  articles  and 
*17 


130  CHARGK    OF    AGGRESSION,  LET.  VI. 

offices  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  has  imi- 
farmly  lefiised  to  admit  any  persons  assuming  to 
be  ministers  of  Christ,  within  her  altar,  until 
they  had  been  regularly  consecrated  according  to 
those  offices;  and  that,  from  the  very  period  of 
emancipation  from  papal  tyranny,  the  doctrine  of 
the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  has  been  maintain- 
ed, both  in  Great-Britain  and  in  this  country,  by 
a  succession  of  as  enlightened  scholars,  and  as 
eminent  saints,  as  ever  adorned  the  Christian 
name. 

It  is  by  you  and  your  brethren,  Sir,  that  new 
and  strange  principles  have  been  introduced.  And, 
not  content  with  separating  from  that  divinely  in- 
stituted ministry,  which,  from  the  Apostolic  age, 
has  been  considered  as  an  essential  ingredient 
of  the  Church  of  Christ,""  and  thus  plunging  into 
the  sin  of  schism  ;  you  brand  with  the  most  oppro- 
brious language  all  who  have  the  firmness  to  point 
out  the  nature  of  the  sin,  or  to  defend  the  cause 
of  primitive  truth  and  order.  What  is  this  but 
the  very  spirit  of  intolerance  ? 

3.  Further — The  persons,  whom  you  censure, 
have  incurred  your  displeasure  in  the  discharge  of 
a  sacred  duty. 


*  "  It  was  the  general  received  persuasion  of  the  ancient  Christian 
world,  that  Ecclesia  est  in  EpiscopOy  the  outward  being  of  a  Churcli 
consisted  in  the  having  of  a  Bishop."  "  Nor  was  tliis  order  peculiar 
unto  some  few  Churches,  but  the  whole  world  universally  became  sub- 
ject thereunto ;  insomuch  as  they  did  not  account  it  to  be  a  Church 
■which  -was  not  subject  unto  a  Bishop"  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity., 
vol.  iii.  p.  125. 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  131 

It  has  been  shown  that  tlie  standards  of  our 
Church  expressly  declare  that  there  have  been 
three  orders  of  ministers  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles;  that  these  orders  are  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons ;  that  Almighty  God,  by  his  Holy 
Spirit,  did  institute  them;  and  that  no  one  can 
be  received  by  her  as  a  Christian  Minister,  unless 
invested  with  that  character  by  a  person  clothed 
with  Episcopal  power.  These  standards  we  have 
subscribed.  It  is  our  duty  to  defend  them.  It  is 
our  duty  to  bring  the  truths  which  they  set  forth 
to  the  view  of  our  people,  that  they  may  know 
the  doctrines  of  their  Church,  and  thus  be  preserv- 
ed from  wandering  after  self-constituted  teachers, 
who  have  no  authority  to  administer  the  ordinances 
of  Christ,  or  to  expound  his  word.  If,  through 
our  neglect,  the  people,  over  whom  we  have 
charge,  are  led  into  practices  which  the  Church 
pronounces  to  be  schismatical,  how  shall  we  an- 
swer it  to  our  consciences,  or  to  our  God  ?  This 
is  a  very  solemn  consideration,  and  ought  to  sink 
deep  into  the  heart  of  every  Episcopal  divine. 

In  speaking  of  one  of  the  articles  of  our  Church, 
you  take  the  liberty  of  observing,  that  we  are  ca- 
nonically  bound  to  preach  and  support  the  doc- 
trines it  contains ;  expressing  the  astonishment 
and  horror  with  which  our  failure  to  preach  and 
support  them  has  filled  your  bosom.  Well,  Sir, 
we  are  as  much  bound  to  defend  one  of  the 
standards  of  our  Church  as  another.  Now,  it  is 
undeniable  that  our  Church  sets  forth  the  divine 
institution  of  Episcopacy;  requiring  such  clergy 


13^  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI. 

men  as  are  desirous  of  joining  her  Ironi  Fresbytc- 
rial  societies,  belbre  they  approach  her  altar,  to 
be  re-ordained.  In  neglecting  to  enforce  these 
truths,  then,  we  should  run  into  that  very  ollence 
which  you  censure  with  sucli  extreme  severity. 

You  tell  us  that  our  articles  are  Calvinistic ;  and 
that,  in  neglecting  to  preach  Calvinism,  we  violate 
our  canonical  vows.  Well,  the  ordinal  of  our 
Church,  you  will  admit,  places  Episcopacy  upon 
the  footing  of  divine  right:  We  are  bound,  then, 
to  maintain  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy. 

If  ^ve  fail  to  mEiintain  a  doctrine  of  our  stand- 
ards, you  accuse  us  of  a  breach  of  plighted  faith. 

If  we  set  forth  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy, 
which  you  will  not  venture  to  deny  to  be  a  doc- 
trine of  those  standards,  you  brand  us  as  bigots 
and  disturbers  of  religious  peace,  with  whom  it 
is  difficult  to  live  upon  terms  of  Christian  inter- 
course. 

Surely  you  are  the  most  unreasonable,  or  we 
are  the  most  unfortunate  of  men. 

In  a  word,  the  doctrine  which  has  given  you 
so  much  offence,  is  as  old  as  Christianity  itself: 
it  has  been  constantly  acted  upon  by  the  Church 
of  England,  and  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  this  country ;  and  ^ve  are  under  a  sa- 
cred obligation  to  explain  and  defend  it  upon  all 
proper  occasions. 

4.  Whatever  may  be  our  claims  on  the  subject  of 
external  order,  it  is  at  least  very  certain  that  they 
fall  far  short  of  those  which  are  set  up  by  the  Pres- 
byterial  association.    This.  I  flatter  mvself,  I  have 


LET.   VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  133 

completely  proved.  You  make  a  ministry  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church  ; 
and  the  exclusive  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordina- 
tion is  the  fundamental  principle  on  which  your 
whole  society  is  erected.  The  Westminster  Di- 
vines tell  us  that  the  power  of  Ordination  is  in  a 
Presbytery,  and  quote  the  very  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  they  consider  as  bearing  them  out  in 
their  assertion.  The  j^articular  association  to 
which  you  belong,  in  describing  the  mode  of  or- 
dination, expressly  rests  it  upon  Apostolic  exam- 
ple. In  your  Letters,  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  Presbytery  is  declared  to  be  the  only  Scrip- 
tural or  valid  mode  of  conveying  the  sacerdotal 
office.  Thus  you  put  the  ministry  at  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Church,  and  Presbyterial  ordination 
at  the  foundation  of  the  ministry ;  while  you  are 
in  the  very  act  of  inveighing  against  the  exclusive 
claims  of  others. 

Again — the  standards  of  Presbyterial  societies 
expressly  declare  the  whole  frame  of  their  eccle- 
siastical government  in  Church  Sessions,  Presby- 
terial Assemblies,  and  Synodical  Assemblies,  to 
be  of  Divine  and  unalterable  obligation ;  while 
Episcopalians  hold  that  there  is  no  form  of  go- 
vernment for  the  Church  drawn  out,  in  all  its 
parts,  in  Scripture.  Nay,  some  of  the  Presbyte- 
rial associations  go  so  far  as  to  represent  the  prin- 
ciples of  their  ecclesiastical  government  as  essen- 
tial to  lawful  society  in  the  state,  not  less  than 
in  the  church  ;  and  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear, 
leadhig  individuals  in  such  societies  are  violent  in 


134  CHARGi:    OF    AGGRES&IOxN.  LET.  VI. 

their  censure  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  because 
she  presumes  to  think  distinct  and  subordinate 
grades  of  ministers  to  be  of  ApostoUc  institution.* 

^Vhat  now  shall  we  say  of  your  attempt  to  hold 
up  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  as  wanton  pro- 
scrioers  of  their  brethren  of  other  denominations  ? 
The  Episcopal  Church  asks  only  to  be  indulged 
in  thinking  for  herself,  and  in  decently  express- 
ing and  maintaining  her  principles.  This  privilege 
you  are  unwilling  to  allow^  her.  If  she  ventures  to 
exercise  it,  you  raise  an  outrageous  clamour  against 
her,  and  endeavour  to  overwhelm  her  with  public 
odium.  You  are  to  be  permitted  to  "  write, 
preach,  and  print,  your  testimony  against  her  cor- 
ruptions ;"  and  to  set  forth,  in  positive  terms,  the 
exclusive  validity  of  your  own  method  of  ordina- 
tion ;  while  the  least  attempt,  in  any  of  her  clergy, 
to  state  or  defend  her  principles,  however  tempe- 
rate their  language,  and  however  they  may  qualify 
their  claims  by  allowance  for  the  errors  of  their 
fellow  men,  is  to  draw  upon  them  all  the  weight 
of  your  displeasure,  and  all  the  virulence  of  your 
invective. 

.5.  It  seems  that  the  system  of  proscription,  as 
you  call  it,  was  formally  commenced  in  the  year 
1804.  Thus  Dr.  Hobart  is  marked  out  as  the  ori- 
ginal aggressor,  and  in  terms  calculated  to  expose 


•^  I  have  not  cited  authorities  in  proof  of  the  assertions  here  made, 
because  the  subject  has  been  fully  considered  in  the  3d,  4th,  and  5th 
Letters,  where  the  reader  will  find  all  that  is  now  said  fully  established 
by  quotations  from  tiie  standards  of  Presbyterial  societies,  and  tlie 
works  of  Presbyterial  authors. 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  135 

hira  to  the  view  of  the  public  as  a  wanton  viola- 
tor of  the  religious  rights  of  others.  A  very  brief 
statement  of  facts  will  cnal^le  tTie  reader  to  jutlg<^ 
how  far,  in  this  attack  upon  Dr.  Hobart,  your  con- 
duct possesses  the  sanction  either  of  consistency 
or  of  truth. 

In  the  year  1804,  Dr.  Ilobart  published  two 
works,  entitled,  a  "  Companion  for  the  Altar," 
and  a  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States."  These  works  are  addressed  solely  to 
Episcopalians,  and  contain  a  brief  statement  and 
defence  of  the  doctrine  of  their  Church  on  the 
subject  of  the  Christian  Ministry.  The  subject  is 
discussed  with  very  great  mildness.  Indeed,  it  is 
not  even  pretended  that  the  works  in  question  are 
marked  by  any  intemperance  or  severity  of  style. 
On  the  contrary,  the  utmost  allowance  is,  on  all 
occasions,  made  for  error. 

The  reader  will  now  see  the  amount  of  what 
you  are  pleased  to  denominate  a  system  of  attack 
and  proscription.  Dr.  Hobart  explained  and  de- 
fended an  acknowledged  doctrine  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  in  works  addressed  solely  to  the  members 
of  that  Church,  and  composed  in  a  spirit  of  the 
utmost  mildness  and  decorum.  Surely,  no  can- 
did man  would  see,  in  a  case  of  this  kind,  any 
thing  more  than  the  exercise  of  an  unquestionable 
right,  or  rather  the  discharge  of  a  sacred  duty. 

You  will  permit  me  to  express  my  surprise  that 
you  should  have  confined  your  view,  on  this  sub- 
ject, within  so  very  limited  a  period.     If  the  jvin- 


136  CHAUGE    or    AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI. 

cipics  \v]]ir]i  you  apply  to  the  case  of  l)i.  ITobartbc 
at  all  correct,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  thai  tlie  Epis- 
copal Church  has  been  long  since  grossly  and  wan- 
tonly assailed.  Indeed,  I  might  reler  you  to  the 
conduct  of  the  Westminster  Divines,  and  of  the 
(^jcneral  Assembly  of  Scodand :  both  of  wliich  ex- 
pressed themselves,  habitually,  in  the  most  vio- 
lent terms  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy;  openly 
and  repeatedly  denouncing  and  abjuring  it,  in 
their  public  and  solemn  acts,  as  a  popish  and 
wicked  hierarchy.  And  the  war  carried  on  by 
these  botlies  against  Episcopacy,  has  been  con- 
tinued, by  their  friends  and  admirers,  to  the  pre- 
sent day.  But  I  will  not  refer  you  to  a  period  or 
country  so  distant.  Let  me  f>im[)ly  point  out  to 
you  the  recent  conduct  of  Presbyterial  Societies, 
and  Presbyterial  authors,  within  the  United  States. 

Take  the  following  passage  from  the  Constitu- 
tion and  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  in  North- America. 

'^  The  Scripture  acknowledgeth  no  degrees  of 
rank  or  dignity  among  the  ministers  of  the  word: 
but  hath  established  them  in  a  perfect  e({uality  of 
ofTice  and  authority.  The  distinction  of  superior 
and  inferior  clergy,  under  whatever  form  or  pre- 
text adopted,  is  highly  unscriptural  and  anti- 
Christian."" 

The  standards  from  which  this  passage  is  taken, 
were  published  several  years  before  the  appear- 
ance of  those  works  of  Dr.  Ilobart  wliicli  have 

•   Vx^Q  A77. 


i^ET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  137 

given  you  so  much  offence.  Let  me  not  be  mis- 
understood. I  am  far  from  intending  to  find 
fault  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  on  this 
occasion.  Notwithstanding,  indeed,  they  have 
used  such  strong  language,  even  applying  to  our 
Church  the  opprobrious  epithet  of  anti- Christian ; 
still.  Episcopalians  have  never  complained.  But 
they  have  surely  had  reason  to  consider  themselves 
as  most  deeply  injured  and  insulted,  if  there  be 
any  correctness  in  the  view  which  you  take  of  thi3 
subject. 

Dr.  Hobart  contends  that  Episcopacy  is  a  di- 
vine institution,  and  that  all  Christians  are  sacred- 
ly bound  to  conform  to  it.  This,  according  to 
your  view,  is  a  gross  attack  upon  other  denomina- 
tions. It  follows,  irresistibly,  that  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  in  branding  all  subordination 
in  the  ministry  as  anti-Christian,  have  committed 
an  outrage  upon  their  Episcopal  brethren ;  and 
^s  the  standards  of  this  Church  were  published 
long  before  the  works  of  Dr.  Hobart,  it  is  pre- 
posterous to  represent  the  system  of  proscriptioa 
as  commencing  with  him. 

The  association  to  which  you  belong  represents 
its  own  mode  of  ordination  as  the  Apostolic  one,^ 
and  sets  forth  its  own  particular  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical polity  as  possessing  the  sanction  of  Scripture 
and  primitive  usage.f  What  is  this  but  declaring 
Episcopacy  to  be  founded  in  corruption  and  usur- 


•*  Form  of  Government,  chap.  xIt,  sert.  1'2. 
f  Ibiti.  chap.  vii.  sect.  1. 

18 


l^S  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI. 

pation  ?  Indeed,  you  tell  us  expressly,  that  Episco- 
pacy is  the  offspring  of  ecclesiastical  intrigue  and 
ambition:*  you  admit  that  Presbyterians  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  "  writing,  preaching,  and 
printing,  their  testimony  against  the  corruptions  of 
the  Episcopal  Church.^t 

But  the  standards  of  your  society  declare  its 
charity  in  reference  to  those  who  differ  from  it  on 
the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  government.     Very 
true.     But  does  not  Dr.  Hobart  expressly  declare 
his  belief  that  God  will  bestow  his  grace  on  those 
who,  through  excusable  ignorance  or  error,  depart 
from  his  external  institutions;  that  he  will  mer- 
cifully receive  all  who  sincerely  desire  and  endea- 
vour to  know^  and  do  his  will?     The  amount  of 
the  matter,  then,  is  this— Your  religious  society 
admits  no  ordination  to  be  scriptural  or  valid,  but 
such  as  is  performed  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  Presbytery :    Dr.  Hobart  admits  no  ordina- 
tion  to   be   valid  unless  Episcopally  performed. 
Your  society  expresses  its  charity  for  those  who 
differ  from  it  in  opinion :    Dr.  Hobart  expresses  a 
similar  charity.     And  while  your  society  consigns 
the  heathen  world  to  indiscriminate  perdition,  and 
unequivocally  sets  forth  the  doctrine  that  there  are 
infants  in  hell,  Dr.  Hobart  turns  with  disgust  and 
horror  from  such  opinions,  as  alike  repugnant  to 
every  view  which  reason  can  take  of  the  attributes 
of  God,  and  to  the  express  declarations  of  the 
sacred  volume. 

'   LcUcra,  p.  11. 

i  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  51 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  13^ 

If,  then,  the  language  of  Dr.  Hobart  may  be 
truly  represented  as  the  language  of  "  attack  and 
proscription,"  it  follows,  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
has  been  long  since  attacked  and  proscribed  in  the 
public  standards  of  most  of  the  Presbyterian  so- 
cieties of  this  country. 

Let  me  now  remind  you  of  the  language  which 
individual  authors  of  your  profession  have  been  in 
the  habit  of  using. 

Mark  the  following  passage  from  Dr.  Mason's 
Letters  on  Frequent  Communion,  published  in  the 
year  1798! 

"  We  reject  in  a  mass  the  corruptions  of  Popery, 
and  of  her  ape,  Prelacy.  We  renounce  the  reli- 
gious observance  of  Christmas,  Epiphany,  Easter^ 
Ascension,  &c.  and  the  festivals  in  honour  of  a 
troop  of  saints  and  saintesses^  as  superstitious, 
and  inconsistent  with  Gospel  worship,  how  grace- 
ful soever  to  the  anti-Christian  calendar."* 

I  do  not  quote  this  for  the  purpose  of  complain- 
ing of  it.  Dr.  Mason  had  a  right  to  express  his 
opinion  on  the  subject  of  the  institutions  of  the 
Episcopal  Church.  I  certainly  think  that  he  has 
exercised  the  right  with  great  roughness ;  ahd  that, 
in  talking  of  Prelacy  as  the  ape  of  Popery,  and 
of  the  Festivals  of  our  Church  as  superstitious 
corruptions  of  Gospel  worship,  he  has  given  his 
name  to  a  very  absurd  accusation.  Clear  it  is,  if 
your  ideas  be  correct,  that  Dr.  Mason  must  stand 
charged  with  having  commenced,    in  tlie  year 

;  Pag-e  89 


14©  CHARGE    OF   AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI. 

1798,  a  system  of  gross  "  attack  and  proscription" 
against  the  Episcopal  Church.  It  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  find  words  more  expressive  of  contempt 
and  abliorrence  than  those  which  Dr.  Mason  uses. 
You  will  search  in  vain  in  the  productions  of  Dr. 
Hobart  for  language  of  so  coarse  a  character. 

Let  me  next  refer  you  to  a  discourse  delivered 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Livingston  before  the  New-York 
Missionary  Society,  and  published  by  order  of 
that  society.  In  this  discourse  you  will  find  the 
following  very  free  expressions : 

'•  Ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  spiritual  Lords,  and 
all  the  pageantry  of  the  hierarchy,  in  its  various 
modifications^  which  have  debased  the  Gospel,  and 
metamorphosed  the  kingdom  of  Christ  to  a  king- 
dom of  this  world,  will  be  finally  trampled  in  the 
dust,  and  despised  by  Christians."* 
.    The  constitution  of  the  Episcopal   Church  is 
here  spoken  of  in  terms  of  the  utmost  severity, 
the  time  being  joyfully  anticipated  when  it  will  be 
at   once   despised   and   detested   throughout   the 
Christian  world.    Language  of  this  sort  is  no  w  here 
to  be  found  in  the  works  of  Dr.  Hobart  which  you 
esteem  so  very  reprehensible.     While  Dr.  H.  con- 
tends strenuously  for  the  distinctive  principles  of 
his  Church,  he  carefully  abstains  from  every  con- 
temptuous form  of  expression.     The  discourse  of 
Dr.  Livingston  was  preached  and  published  pre- 
viously to  the  year  1804. 

It  is  extremely  painful  to  me  to  occupy  so  much 

'   Pa^c  21*. 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  141 

time  in  this  way;  but  you  have  advanced  a  most 
luijust  and  bitter  charge  against  the  F^piscopal 
Church,  from  which  I  feel  it  a  duty  to  defend  her. 
This  it  is  impossible  to  do,  without  entering  into 
an  unpleasant  detail  of  facts.^ 

6.  It  is  really  amusing  to  compare  what  you  say 
of  the  works  of  Dr.  Hobart  with  the  manner  in 
which  you  speak  of  your  own  Letters.  These 
being  addressed  exclusively  to  Presbyterians,  it 
was  your  expectation,  you  tell  us,  that  they  would 
not  be  considered  as  of  the  polemic  character; 
but  would  be  suflfered  to  pass  without  notice  ;t 
and  you  accordingly  proceed  to  charge  us  with 
intruding  into  your  Church  to  attack  you  in  the 
peaceable  performance  of  your  official  duties.J 

But  is  it  not  remarkable  that  it  should  never 
have  occurred  to  you  to  apply  your  new  principle 
to  the  publications  of  Dr.  Hobart  ?  They  are  ad- 
dressed solely  to  Episcopalians;  and,  from  their 
very  nature,  can  be  intended  for  Episcopalians 
alone. 

Your  Letters,  being  addressed  solely  to  Presby- 
terians, are  a  mere  private  affair ;  and  no  man  can 
publicly  animadvert  upon  them,  without  commit- 
ting an  offence  against  your  rights  and  privileges. 
The  works  of  Dr.  Hobart,  as  limited  in  their  ad- 


*  The  foregoing  facts  are  also  stated  in  Dr.  Hobart's  Apology  for 
Apostolic  Order,  where  the  charge  of  aggression  is  unanswerably  con- 
futed.§ 

t  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  19.  ^  Ibid.  p.  35. 

§  Apology,  p.  32—39. 


142  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LET.  VI. 

dress  and  intention  as  your  Letters,  amount,  ne- 
tertheless,  to  a  public  attack  upon  other  societies 
of  Christians,  which  they  are  bound  to  repel  with 
contempt  and  indignation. 

Will  you  never  cease  to  be  at  variance  with 
yourself  ? 

But  let  it  be  further  observed,  that  Dr.  Hobart 
confined  himself  to  a  discussion  of  principles.    He 
did  nothing  more  than  set  forth  and  defend  the 
admitted  doctrines  of  the  Church  to  which  he  be- 
longs.    There  is  not  a  single  personal  remark  in 
his  publications.    Have  you  followed  his  example  ? 
Very  far  from  it!    Subordination  in  the  ministry 
you  continually  represent  as  the  offspring  of  Ec- 
clesiastical ambition  :*  you  tell  us  that  our  Church 
has  deviated  far  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  :t 
you  "  write,  preach,   and  print,   your  testimony 
against  her  corruptions."t     But  of  all  this  I  make 
no  complaint.     If  you  think  our  Church  corrupt, 
you  have  a  right  to  say  so.     Without  a  privilege 
of  this  kind,  free  discussion  would  be  impossible. 
But  you   are  not  content  with  representing  our 
Church  as  corrupt  and  unscriptural ;  you  go  on  to 
indulge  in  personal  invective  against  her  advo- 
cates.    They  are  wretched  bigots,  with  whom  it  is 
difficult   to  live  upon   terms  of  Christian   inter- 
course ;^   they  are  no  better  than  the  worshippers 
of  images  ;||  they  are  to  be  viewed  in  the  same 

*  Letters,  p.  11.  j  Ibid.  p.  10,  11. 

r  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  51.  $  Letters,  p.  19,  351. 

II  Ibid.  p.  21. 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OF    AG*GRESSION.  143 

light  with  those  who  hold  that  the  Pope  is  infal- 
lible, and  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  salvation 
out  of  the  Church  of  Rome.*  The  narrowness 
of  their  views,  and  the  slenderness  of  their  in- 
formation, it  always  delights  you  to  dwell  upon. 

See,  then,  the  true  state  of  the  case ! 

The  standards  of  Presbyterian  societies  had 
declared  the  Episcopal  Church  to  be  unscriptural 
and  anti-Christian  in  her  ministry:  they  had  ex- 
pressly set  forth  their  own  mode  of  ordination  as 
the  only  Apostolic  or  valid  mode,  and  their  own 
form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  as  of  divine  and  un- 
alterable obligation.  Presbyterian  authors  had 
spoken  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  terms  of  the 
greatest  contempt ;  they  had  represented  her  wor- 
ship as  superstitious,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
purity  of  the  Gospel ;  they  had  declared  Episco- 
pacy to  be  the  ape  of  Popery,  and  had  hailed  the 
period,  as  rapidly  approaching,  when  it  would  be 
trampled  in  the  dust,  and  universally  despised: 
They  had  never  ceased  to  "  write,  preach,  and 
print,  their  testimony  against  the  corruptions  of 
the  Episcopal  Church."  In  this  state  of  things,  Dr. 
Hobart  published  two  works,  entitled  "  A  Compa- 
nion for  the  Altar,"  and  "  A  Companion  for  the 
Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States."  In  these  works, 
addressed  solely  to  Episcopalians,  he  stated  and 
defended  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy,  as  declared 
in  the  standards  of  the  Church  of  which  he  is  sl 

♦  T-etters,  p.  21. 


144  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LET.  Vi. 

minister;  making  always,  however,  the  greatest 
allowance  for  conscientious  error,  and  indulging 
in  not  a  single  personal  remark.  Immediately  an 
outrageous  clamour  is  raised  against  him  ;  he  is 
branded  as  a  bigot  and  a  fool;  an  anonymous 
writer  attacks  him  with  shameful  intemperance  in 
the  public  prints ;  he  is  charged  with  setting  on 
foot  a  system  of  odious  denunciation  and  proscrip- 
tion. When  it  is  stated  that  his  publications  are 
addressed  solely  to  Episcopalians,  and  are  de- 
signed for  their  instruction  in  the  acknowledged 
principles  of  their  Church,  the  plea  is  rejected 
with  contempt ;  his  w^orks  are  declared  to  be 
nothing  less  than  a  public  assault  upon  his  neigh- 
bours. 

Look  now  at  the  other  side  of  the  matter. 

Dr.  Miller  addresses  to  his  people  a  Series  of 
Letters  on  the  Constitution  and  Order  of  the 
Christian  Ministry,  in  which,  not  content  with 
branding  Episcopacy  as  the  corrupt  result  of  ec- 
clesiastical fraud,  and  with  setting  forth  the  exclu- 
sive  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination,  and  of 
Presbyterial  Church  government,  he  goes  on  to 
indulge  in  the  utmost  severity  of  personal  remark. 
Is  an  attempt  made  to  refute  his  reasoning,  and  to 
repel  his  charges  ?  He  very  piteously  tells  us,  that 
his  Letters  are  a  private  affair  between  himself  and 
his  people,  of  which  no  one  has  a  right  to  take 
any  notice. 

Dr.  Hobart  explains  and  defends  the  arknowr^ 
lodged  principles  of  his  Church,  in  a  style  free 
from  all  intemperance,  and  without  tlie  slightest 


LET.  Vlf  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  145 

intermixture  of  personal  remark.  This  is  a  deli- 
berate system  of  proscription.  The  author  is  an 
outrageous  disturber  of  religious  peace:  he  is  a 
bigot  and  a  fool. 

Dr.  Miller  contends  most  zealously  for  the  ex- 
clusive validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination,  and  of 
Presbyterial  Church  government;  and  not  satis- 
fied with  perpetually  telling  his  readers  how  far 
the  Episcopal  Church,  through  the  influence  of 
prelatical  fraud  and  ambition,  has  wandered  from 
scriptural  purity,  continually  vents  himself  in  the 
application  of  the  most  injurious  epithets  to  the 
persons  of  her  advocates.  This  is  a  mere  private 
affair ;  so  much  so  that  it  is  an  act  of  positive  rude- 
ness to  take  any  notice  of  it. 

What  a  specimen  of  consistency  and  of  candour ! 
7.  But  where  will  all  this  sort  of  complaint  and 
crimination  lead  us  ?     If  the  view  which  you  take 
of  this  subject  be  correct,  theological  discussion 
must  be  entirely  given  up.     Has  the  Quaker   a 
right  to  complain  because  the  sacraments  are  in- 
sisted on  as  of  indispensable  obligation?     Is  the 
Socinian  denounced  and  proscribed  whenever  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  represented  as 
fundamental  to  the  scheme  of  the  Gospel  ?  Surely, 
it  is  possible  to  exercise  charity  at  the  same  time 
that  we  contend  for  truth.     Men  should  never  be 
considered  as  guilty  of  attack  upon  their  fellow 
Christians  simply  for  bearing  testimony  against 
what   they  conceive   to  be  pernicious  error,      it 
is  a  solemn  duty  to  expose  error,  and  to  recom- 
mend truth.     It  mav  be  the  highest  act  of  charitv 
'       19         ^ 


146  CHARGE    OF    AGGRESSION.  LEiT.  VI. 

to  warn  our  fellow  men  of  the  danger  of  their 
situation.  If  the  language  of  menace  or  insult 
be  made  use  of,  then,  indeed,  religious  liberty 
mav^  be  considered  as  invaded.  It  is  to  the  spirit 
with  which  controversy  is  conducted,  rather  than 
the  particular  principles  contended  for,  that  we  are, 
in  this  view  of  the  subject,  to  attend.  To  be  sure, 
if  men  openly  take  the  ground  that  such  as  differ 
from  them  in  opinion  ought  not  to  be  tolerated, 
they  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  the  common  ene- 
mies of  the  Christian  world.  But  there  is  a  very 
wide  difference  between  strenuously  urging  a  doc- 
trine upon  the  understandings  and  consciences  of 
our  fellow  men  as  of  vital  importance,  and  calling 
upon  the  civil  magistrate  to  crush,  by  the  force  of 
his  authority,  all  who  refuse  to  receive  it  as  an 
article  of  faith. 

Let  then  Christians  of  all  denominations  be 
considered  free  to  maintain  what  they  conceive 
to  be  tmth,  and  oppose  what  they  conceive  to  be 
error,  with  all  the  zeal  and  energy  which  the  sub- 
ject may  seem  to  them  to  authorize.  Let  this  be 
regarded  as  nothing  more  than  a  fair  exercise  of 
t'he  rights  of  conscience.  At  the  same  time,  let 
all  recollect,  in  the  midst  of  their  zeal,  that  they 
are  fallible ;  and  thus  be  led  to  respect  in  others 
that  right  of  judgment  which  they  claim  for  them- 
selves. Had  you  acted  in  the  spirit  of  this  rule, 
your  Letters  on  the  Christian  Ministry  would  have 
met  ^\it]i  a  very  different  reception  from  those 
against  whose  opinions  they  are  levelled.  But 
ill  tluj  lofty  confidence  with  which  you  advanced 


LET.  VI.  CHARGE    OP    AGGRESSION.  147 

your  own  views  of  ecclesiastical  order,  you  ap- 
peared entirely  to  forget  that  your  opponents  bad 
quite  as  much  right  to  be  positive  as  yourself.  In 
the  spirit  of  your  work,  Prcsbyterial  order  is  set 
up  as  a  sort  of  idol,  before  which  we  are,  at  least, 
to  be  compelled  to  be  dumb,  if  not  to  fall  down 
and  worship.  For  what  great  difference  can  there 
be  between  attempting  to  silence  an  antagonist 
by  the  sword  of  the  executioner,  and  by  branding 
him  as  a  ferocious  bigot,  who  denounces  and  pro- 
scribes all  that  presume  to  reject  his  dogmas? 
Had  you  permitted  us  to  maintain  the  divine  right 
of  Episcopacy  as  freely  as  you  maintain  the  divine 
right  of  Presbytery,  we  should  have  regarded  you 
as  a  candid  controvertist,  and  should  have  ab- 
stained from  that  severity  of  animadversion,  of 
which,  in  the  Continuation  of  your  Letters,  you 
so  bitterly  complain.  But,  Sir,  in  replying  to  your 
work,  we  considered  ourselves  not  only  as  con- 
tending against  pernicious  error,  but  as  grappling 
with  an  adversary,  who  openly  professed  his  de- 
termination to  reduce  us  to  abject  submission. 
What  wonder  that  intolerance  of  this  kind,  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  should  call  forth  a  spirit  of 
indignant  resistance ! 


(     148    ) 

LETTER  VII. 
OPIXIOXS  OF  THE  REFORMERS. 

Sir, 

X  Do  not  think  it  necessary  to  follow  you  in  the 
exact  order  which  you  have  pursued:  indeed, 
this  would  interfere  with  a  regular  and  perspicuous 
discussion.  In  the  present  letter,  I  propose  to  ex- 
amine what  you  have  said  of  those  illustrious  men 
who  purged  the  Church  from  the  foulness  of  the 
papal  corruption.  We  will  direct  our  attention, 
in  the  first  place,  if  you  please,  to  the  reformers 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

*'  The  Fathers  of  the  Reformation  in  England 
were  Presbyterians  in  principle."  "  It  does  not 
appear  that  any  of  them  thought  of  placing  Epis- 
copacy on  the  footing  of  divine  right."* 

To  this  statement  you  strictly  adhere  in  your 
second  publication.f 

It  appears  from  your  Letters  that  you  are  not 
unacquainted  with  the  ordination  offices  of  oltr 
Church,  nor  with  the  fact  that  those  offices  were 
drawn  up  by  the  very  men  whom  you  represent  as 
Presbyterians  in  principle.J     Besides,  your  atten- 

*  Letters,  p.  219.  {  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  225—236. 

+  You  tell  us  expressly,  that  Archbishop  Cranmer  had  a  principal  hand 
;n  drav.'inpr  up  ♦tc  forms  of  ordination  of  the  Church  of  Englandfj 

;i  Letter!'.  ]».  VCIC. 


LfT»  VII.       OPINIONS  or  THE  REFORMERS.  149 

tion  was  particularly  directed,  by  Dr.  Bowden  and 
myself,  in  our  reply  to  your  first  Series  of  Letters, 
to  tlie  Ordinal  of  the  Church  of  England.  You 
very  prudently  decline,  in  your  second  work,  all 
notice  of  this  authentic  document,  while  you  still 
adhere  to  the  statement  which  you  had  previously 
given  as  perfectly  correct.  You,  therefore,  can- 
not plead  either  ignorance  or  error. 

Let  us  examine  the  Ordinal^  and  see  how  far 
you  are  correct  in  asserting  that  it  was  drawn  up 
by  Presbyterians. 

We  will  look,  in  the  first  place,  at  the  preface: 
'^  It  is  evident  to  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy 
Scripture,  and  ancient  authors,  that,  from  the 
Apostles'  time,  there  have  been  these  orders  of 
ministers  in  Christ's  Church ;  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons."* 

A  Presbyterian,  then,  is  one  who  believes  that 
the  three  distinct  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  have  existed  from  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  of  course  w  ere  established  by  them. 

Again — "  No  man  shall  be  accounted  or  ta- 
ken to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon, 
in  the  Church  of  England,  or  suffered  to  execute 
any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereunto,  accord- 
ing to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had 
formerly  Episcopal  consecration,  or  ordination."t 


*  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Consecration  of  Bishops,  and  of  ordering  of 
Priests  and  Deacons, 
t  Ibid. 


150  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII. 

A  Presbyterian,  then,  considers  Episcopal  or- 
dination as  absolutely  essential  to  the  exercise  of 
a  vahd  priesthood;  refusing  to  wait  upon  the 
ministrations  of  any  man  who  has  not  been  com- 
missioned by  a  diocesan  Bishop. 

But  let  us  proceed  to  the  Ordinal  itself.  And 
here  we  are  immediately  struck  with  the  fact,  that 
it  prescribes  three  distinct  offices ;  one  for  the  ordi- 
nation of  Deacons,  one  for  the  ordination  of  Priests, 
and  one  for  the  ordination  of  Bishops.  When  a 
Deacon  is  raised  to  the  office  of  Priest,  he  receives 
a  new  commission :  when  a  Priest  is  raised  to  the 
office  of  Bishop,  he  receives  a  new  commission. 

A  Presbyterian,  then,  is  one  who  believes  that 
a  Presbyter  is  made  a  Bishop  by  being  again  or- 
dained. 

Still  further — The  first  prayer  in  the  office  for 
ordering  Deacons,  commences  thus:  "  Almighty 
God,  who,  by  thy  Divine  Providence,  hast  ap- 
pointed divers  orders  of  ministers  in  thy  Church." 

The  same  kind  of  language  occurs  in  the  office 
for  ordering  Priests:  "  Almighty  God,  giver  of  all 
good  things,  who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit,  hast  ap- 
pointed divers  orders  of  ministers  in  thy  Church." 

In  the  office  for  the  consecration  of  Bishops,  we 
have  the  very  same  words :  "  Almighty  God,  giver 
of  all  good  things,  who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit,  hast 
appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers  in  thy  Church." 

Is  it  possible  to  find  language  more  full,  or  more 
expUcit?  Three  orders  of  ministers  have  existed 
from  the  Apostles'  time — these  orders  are  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons — Almighty  God,  by  his  Holy 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  151 

Spirit,  did  institute  them:  And  to  preserve  the 
distinction,  thus  divinely  established,  no  man  is 
to  be  esteemed  a  lawful  minister  unless  Episco- 
pally  ordained.  Still,  the  reformers  who  drew  up 
the  Ordinal,  you  tell  us,  were  "  Presbyterians  in 
principle;"  not  one  of  them  entertaining  the 
"  thought  of  placing  Episcopacy  upon  the  footing 
of  divine  right." 

But  how  do  you  establish  your  assertion,  that 
the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
Presbyterians  in  principle?  Do  you  refer  your 
readers  to  the  Ordinal  which  these  venerable  men 
composed,  and  endeavour  to  prove,  by  a  critical 
examination  of  its  contents^  that  it  speaks  the 
language  of  parity?  Very  far  from  it!  The  Or- 
dinal contains  the  matured  and  final  opinions  of 
the  English  reformers  on  the  subject  of  the  minis- 
try :  they  composed  it  as  a  permanent  standard  of 
practice  for  the  Church ;  and,  accordingly,  it  has 
continued  to  be  her  guide  from  the  Reformation 
to  the  present  day. 

Aware  of  the  difficulty  which  the  Ordinal  throws 
in  your  way,  you  resolved  to  surmount  it  by  a  bold 
assertion.  Thus  you  speak  in  your  first  Series  of 
Letters:  "  Those  who  wish  to  persuade  us  that  the 
venerable  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
held  the  divine  right  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy,  re~ 
fer  us  to  the  ordination  service  drawn  up  by  them. 
But  those  who  insist  on  this  argument,  forget  that 
the  ordination  service,  as  it  now  stands,  differs 
considerably  from  that  which  was  drawn  up  by 
Cranmer  and  his  associates.     If  I  mistake  not, 


152  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  Mt 

that  service,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  re- 
formers, did  not  contain  a  sentence  inconsistent 
witli  the  opinions  which  I  have  ascribed  to  them. 
Above  an  hundred  years  afterwards,  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.  this  service  was  revised  and  altered."* 
You  could  not  venture  to  be  positive.  "  If  I 
mistake  not."  And  not  only  do  you  substitute 
hypothesis  in  the  place  of  fact,  but  you  give  us 
no  authority  for  what  you  say.  Thus  we  are  to 
take  your  conjectures  for  established  truths.  The 
fact  is,  that  the  Ordinal  was  not  altered,  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  the  second,  in  any  thing  at  all  material.f 


*  Letters,  p.  224,  225. 

t  The  act  of  Parliament  for  drawing-  up  an  Ordinal,  passed  in  the 
yp-ar  1549,  not  lon^  after  the  accession  of  Edward  VI.  to  the  throne.  It 
begins  thus — "  It  is  requisite  to  have  one  uniform  fashion  and  manner 
for  making  and  consecrating  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons."  We 
see,  therefore,  that  the  act  of  Parliament,  under  which  the  Ordinal 
was  drawn  up,  expressly  recognizes  the  distinction  in  the  orders  of  tlve 
ministry.  Accordingly,  in  the  preface  to  the  Ordinal,  and  in  the 
prayers  of  the  ordination  offices,  divers  orders  of  ministers  arc  for- 
mally declared  to  be  of  divine  institution. 

In  the  Ordinal  set  forth  in  Edward's  reign,  the  words  in  tlie  office  for 
consecrating  a  Bishop  are — "  Take  the  Holy  Ghost,  remember  that 
thou  stir  up,  &c."  The  words  in  the  present  Ordinal  are — "  Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishop." 

The  alteration  was  made  in  consequence  of  a  cavil  of  the  Papists, 
in  which  they  were  jomed  by  the  Puritans,  that  tl^  word  Bishop  not 
being  used,  it  was  impossible  to  determine  to  what  office  the  person, 
on  whom  hands  were  laid,  was  intended  to  be  consecrated.  Perhaps 
a  more  ridiculous  criticism  was  never  employed.  The  two  offices  for 
consecration  of  Bishops  and  of  Presbyters,  are  perfectly  distinct.  A 
person  who  had  been  ordained  Presbyter  according  to  the  one  form,  if 
raised  to  the  office  of  Bishop,  was  again  consecrated  according  to  the 
other.  It  could  not  but  be  known  to  what  office  an  individual  was  or- 
dained; there  was,  literally,  no  possibility  of  mistake  in  t!»e  case.  But 
factious  men  arc  ever  ready  to  dispute,  and  make  trouble.  Accord- 
ingly, Ihc  Papists  raised  the  difficulty,  which  has  been  just  mentioned. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFOllMCRS.  153 

Every  word  which  I  have  f [noted  stood  in  the  old 
Ordiuiil  precisely  as  it  stands  in  the  present:  the 
prayers  of  the  ordination  offices  were  exactly 
the  same.  This  was  stated  by  Dr.  Bowden  and 
myself  in  our  reply  to  yoin-  fir-:t  publication.  We 
called  upon  you  to  establish  your  assertion,  that 
the  Ordinal  had  been  materially  changed  in  the 
reign  of  Charles  II.  To  all  this  you  make  no 
reply;  passing  by  the  whole  subject  of  the  or- 
dination offices  of  our  Church,  although  they  are 
the  very  hinge  on  which  the  particular  point  in 
controversy  turns,  ^vithout  a  word  of  notice. 

Well — you  asserted  that  the  ordination  service 
was  materially  changed  in  the  reign  of  Charles 
II. — we  denied  your  assertion,  and  called  for 
your  proof.  In  your  reply  you  produce  no  proof, 
but  leave  the  subject  entirely  unnoticed.  Your 
assertion,  relative  to  a  change  in  the  Ordinal, 
then,  is  to  be  considered  as  given  up.  But  still 
you  persevere  in  making  Presbyterians  of  the 
English  reformers. 

Let  us,  then,  draw  out  your  account  of  a  Pres- 
byterian into  a  full  definition. 

He  is  one  who  believes  that  Almighty  God,  by 
his  Holy  Spirit,  did  inslitule  divers  orders  of  mi- 
nisters; that  these  orders  are  Bishops,  Priesis,  and 
Deacons;  that  to  the  highest  of  these  the  power 
of  ordaining  exclusively  belongs  ;  and  that  no  per- 

and  the  Puritans  were  not  ashamed  to  join  them  in  it.  I'he  ultcraticn 
■was  inlroductd  to  l::ke  livvuy  all  prcteiict:  for  the  cavil. 

This  subject  is  very  fully  expiitincd  by  Dr.  Bovvdcn,  in  his  second 
volume  ot;  Episcopacy,  Letter  Xl\. 

20 


T54  OPINIONS    OF    THE    REFORMERS.     LET.  VII, 

^on  can  be  considered  as  a  lawful  minister  of 
Christ  without  having  received  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion or  consecration. 

Instead  of  endeavouring  to  ascertain  the  opinions 
of  the  reformers  in  question,  from  those  public 
forms  of  ordination  which  they  established  for  the 
permanent  regulation  of  the  practice  of  the  Church, 
you  perplex  and  confuse  the  reader  with  a  mass 
of  extrinsic  evidence. 

You  quote  "  The  Institution  of  a  Christian 
Man,"  and  "  A  necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition 
for  any  Christian  Man;"  two  books  which  were 
composed  and  published  by  the  English  reformers 
several  years  before  the  Ordinal  appeared — You 
refer  to  the  conduct  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  upon 
the  death  of  Henry  VIII. — You  introduce  an  ex- 
tract from  the  Questions  and  Answers  of  "  a  se- 
lect Assembly  of  Divines,"  called  for  "  the  reso- 
lution of  several  questions  relative  to  the  settle- 
ment of  religion." All  this  is  of  a  date  prior  to 

the  vcar  1550,  in  which  the  forms  of  ordination 
and  consecration  were  solemnly  fixed  in  the  Church 
of  England. 

You  go  on  to  derive  evidence  from  events  sub- 
sequent to  the  period  above  mentioned  ;  referring 
us  to  an  act  passed  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  the 
roign  of  Elizabeth ;  to  the  conduct  which  the  Eng- 
lisli  relbrmers  observed  towards  some  eminent 
foreign  Divines,  particularly  Calvin;  and  to  the 
license  granted  by  Archbishop  Grindal  to  John 
Morrison,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

N^w,  Sir,  on  all  this  I  have  two  observations 


LET.  VII.     OPINIONS    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  165 

to  make.  In  the  first  place,  if  the  documents  and 
facts,  to  which  you  refer,  really  speak  the  language 
which  you  labour  to  make  them  speak,  it  is  no- 
thing to  the  purpose :  in  the  second  place,  they 
do  not  speak  that  language ;  but,  when  properly 
examined,  militate  against  the  very  positions  which 
you  bring  them  to  confirm,  and  establish  the  very 
doctrines  which  you  bring  them  to  overthrow. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  if  the  documents  and 
facts,  to  Avhich  you  refer,  really  speak  the  lan- 
guage which  you  labour  to  make  them  speak,  it 
is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Admit  that  the  Eng- 
lish reformers,  when  they  composed  the  "  Insti- 
tution, and  Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man,''  and 
when  the  select  Assembly  of  Divines  was  con- 
vened, were  really  favourable  to  the  doctrine  of 
ministerial  parity;  the  only  consequence  is,  that, 
upon  more  full  investigation,  they  found  reason 
to  change  their  opinion.  At  the  time  of  drawing 
up  the  Ordinal,  they  unquestionably  believed  in 
the  divine  institution  of  distinct  and  subordinate 
orders  of  ministers,  with  appropriate  powers.  "  Al- 
mighty God,  who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit,  hast  ap- 
pointed divers  orders  of  ministers  in  thy  Church.'*' 
Here  we  have  the  conclusion  in  which  the  English 
reformers  rested  when  they  had  completed  their 
inquiries.  How  unfair  is  it,  then,  in  examining 
into  the  opinions  which  these  men  entertained  on 
the  subject  of  the  ministry,  to  pass,  without  notice^' 

*  You  take  not  the  slightest  notice  of  the  Ordinal  in  your  second 
work ;  and  in  the  first,  you  only  very  briefly  refer  to  it,  for  tlie  iMiqiose 
of  making  an  assertion  which  yon  ought  to  have  known  to  br  uVci'.v 


156  OPINIONS    OF    THi:    PtEFORMERS.     LET.  VII. 

the  authentic  document  from  which  alone  those 
opinions  maybe  fully,  and  with  absolute  certainty, 
discovered,  and  dwell  on  partial  extracts  of  books 
put  out  for  temporary  use  in  the  infancy  of  the 
Reformation,  and  with  respect  to  which  it  is  well 
known  that  very  different  accounts  are  given  by 
opposing  writers ! 

Airain— if  it  be  admitted  that  the  facts,  to  which 
you  refer,  of  a  dale  subsequent  to  the  year  in 
which  the  Ordinal  was  established,  are  exactly  as 
you  represent  them,  the  only  consequence  would 
be,  that  the  history  of  the  Church  of  England 
furnishes  instances  of  the  violation  of  her  princi- 
ples by  secret  enemies,  or  injudicious  friends. 
Is  there  a  Church  on  earth  whose  history  will  not 
present  us  with  similar  examples  ?  When  a  Church 
expressly  lays  down  a  principle  in  her  standards, 
is  it  not  preposterous  to  point  us  to  cases  in  which, 
through  the  ditficulty  of  the  times,  she  was  led  to 
infringe  that  principle  ? 

Tiie  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  you 
tell  us,  were  Presbyterians.  We  answer,  that  these 
reformers,  in  the  standards  which  they  drew  up 
for  the  perpetual  government  of  the  Church,  ex- 
press! v  declare  that  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons 
are  distinct  and  subordinate  orders  of  the  ministry, 
and  that  to  the  highest  of  these  orders  the  power 
of  ordination  is  exclusively  given.    What  reply  do 


unfoun<lr<l ;  and  when  called  upon  to  prove  the  assertion,  you  remain 
perfectly  silent.  You  do  not  attempt  to  prove,  and  still  you  have  no* 
thc  mag-nanimity  to  retract.  TJiis,  too,  with  respect  to  a  fact  on  which 
the  txutU  of  an  important  head  of  your  book  wholly  turns 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  157 

jou  make?  Why,  you  tell  us  that  Archbishop 
Grindal,  m  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  many  years 
after  the  Ordinal  was  established,  gave  a  preach- 
ing license  to  John  Morrison,  a  Presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  You  say  not  a  word  about 
the  Ordinal,  which  can  alone  determine  the  ques- 
tion, but  put  us  off  with  the  loose  conduct  of  an 
Archbishop  who  was  called  to  an  account  by  the 
Privy  Council  for  his  irregularity.  The  case  of 
Grindal  you  have  not  fairly  staled;  but  take  the 
fact  to  be  precisely  as  you  give  it,  and  it  amounts 
simply  to  this,  that  Grindal  violated  the  standards 
of  the  Church  to  which  he  belonged.  Thus,  then, 
although  the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
expressly  declare,  in  a  standard  wliich  they  deli- 
berately composed  for  the  government  of  that 
Church,  that  Episcopacy  is  a  divine  institution, 
you  pass  by  this  standard  without  a  word  of  notice, 
and  assert,  that  they  were  Presbyterians,  because, 
in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  John  Morrison,  w^ho 
had  never  been  Episcopally  ordained,  was,  never- 
theless, permitted,  by  Archbishop  Grindal,  to  preach 
and  administer  the  sacraments.  In  the  same  way 
you  might  prove  that  the  English  reformers  re- 
jected the  whole  doctrine  of  the  authentic  call 
and  commission  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  from  the 
circumstance  of  laymen,  in  the  difficulty  and 
confusion  of  the  times,  having  the  address  to  get 
into  livings  in  the  Church. 

Suppose  it  to  be  admitted  that  Calvin  never 
received  ordination — would  it  follow  that  the  Pres- 
byterians do  not  believe  in  the  necessity  of  an 


158  OPINIONS  OP  THE  REFORMERS.      LET.  VIl. 

outward  commission  to  a  valid  ministry?  Just  as 
much  as  it  follows,  from  the  irregularity  to  which 
Archbishop  Grindal  was  prone,  that  the  reformers 
of  the  Church  of  England  were  not  Episcopalians. 

In  the  second  place,  the  documents  and  facts, 
to  which  you  refer,  do  not  speak  the  language 
which  you  endeavour  to  make  them  speak;  but, 
w  hen  properly  examined,  militate  against  the  very 
positions  which  you  bring  them  to  confirm,  and 
establish  the  very  doctrine  which  it  is  your  design 
to  overthrow^ 

It  is  not  my  intention,  however,  to  enter  mi- 
nutely into  this  part  of  the  subject.  Having  shown 
that  the  standards,  which  the  Enghsh  reformers 
established  for  the  perpetual  government  of  the 
Church,  set  forth,  in  the  plainest  and  strongest 
terms,  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  it  is- 
not  material  to  inquire  into  the  progress  of  their 
opinions.  It  is  sufficient  to  know  the  conclusion 
in  which  their  investigations  terminated.  Besides, 
a  tedious  detail  of  quotations  would  be  necessary ; 
and  it  is  my  earnest  wish  to  prevent  the  present 
work  from  swelling  to  an  inconvenient  size.  I 
should,  however,  consider  it  a  duty  to  follow 
you,  step  by  step,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
how  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  your  state- 
ment of  facts,  or  citation  of  authorities,  had  not 
the  task  been  most  fully  and  ably  executed  by  Dr. 
Bowden.*  He  has  left  nothing  for  me  to  say.  It 
is  by  presenting  partial  quotations  that  you  give 


*  Bowdcn  on  Episcopacv,  vol.  ii.  letters  14  ajid  15.  Vol.  iii.  letter!^. 

I 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THK  REFORMERS.  159 

to  the  early  declarations  of  the  English  reformers 
the  appearance  of  being  favourable  to  the  doc- 
trine of  parity.  Dr.  Bovvden  has  laid  the  whole 
evidence  before  the  reader,  and  has  thus  driven 
you  at  once  from  a  position,  which  you  evidently 
considered  as  of  great  importance,  and  which, 
with  characteristic  positiveness,  you  had  repeat- 
edly pronounced  to  be  impregnable. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  however, 
I  think  it  proper  to  take  a  little  notice  of  what  you 
have  said  relative  to  Archbishop  Cranmer.  Let 
me  solicit  your  attention,  in  the  first  place,  to  the 
very  inconsistent  accounts  which  you  give  of  the 
venerable  Primate. 

You  declare,  expressly,  that  Cranmer  w^as  a 
Presbyterian  in  principle;  believing  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  to  be  the  same  by  divine  right,  and 
regarding  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity  as 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  the  primitive 
Church.* 

Now,  see  how  you  speak  of  the  Archbishop  in 
another  part  of  your  work!  "  The  first  consists 
©f  those  who  believe  that  neither  Christ  nor  his 
Apostles  laid  down  any  particular  form  of  ecclesi- 
astical government,  to  which  the  Church  is  bound 
to  adhere  in  all  ages.  That  every  Church  is  free, 
consistently  with  the  divine  will,  to  frame  her 
constitution  agreeably  to  her  own  views,  to  the 
state  of  society,  and  to  the  exigences  of  particular 

*  T.Ptters,  p.  119,243,  244. 


160  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LEI.  VIL 

lines.''     ^'  This  is  well  known  to  have  been  the 
opinion  of  Archbishop  Cranmer."* 

Here  Cranrner  is  represented  as  a  perfect  latitu- 
dinarian;  believing  the  whole  constitution  of  the 
Christian  Church  to  be  a  mere  human  affair,  and 
subject  to  alteration,  from  day  to  day,  as  prudence 
may  dictate.  The  ministry  is  thus  placed  upon 
the  footing  of  siinple  expediency;  for,  being  part, 
indeed  the  principal  part,  of  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  it  is  of  course  liable,  according  to 
the  language  of  this  passage  of  your  Letters,  to 
be  perpetually  varied  to  suit  "  the  exigences  of 
particular  times."  Still,  you  tell  us,  in  a  subse- 
quent page,t  that  Cranrner  considered  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  as  the  same  by  divine  right.  This  is  to 
place  the  clerical  office  on  the  footing  of  divine 
institution.  And  if  the  clerical  office  be  of  God, 
how  can  it  be  said  that  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  of  which  that  office  is  the  chief  ingre- 
dient,  is  a  mere  affair  of  expediency,  and  subject 
to  perpetual  alteration  by  human  authority? 

At  one  time  you  assert  that  Cranrner  viewed  the 
whole  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  as  a 
creature  of  human  policy,  and  liable  to  incessant 
change ;  at  another,  that  he  considered  the  great 
and  leading  principle  of  that  constitution  as  fixed 
by  God  himself. 

When  authors  are  in  very  eager  pursuit  of  vic- 
tory, it  is  extremely  difficult  for  them  to  steer  clear 
of  contradiction.     Cranrner,  according  to  the  hu- 

•  X-eUcrs,  r  1.?  f  Ibid.  p.  219. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  161 

moiir  you  happen  to  be  in,  is  now  an  Erastian ; 
now  a  Presbyterian ;  but  never  an  Episcopalian, 
although  he  drew  up  the  standards  which  lie  at  the 
foundation  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  which 
impart  to  her  her  Episcopal  character. 

But  there  is  further  evidence  of  the  opinion  en- 
tertained by  the  venerable  Archbishop  on  this 
subject. 

He  compiled  a  Catechism,  in  which,  according 
to  Bishop  Burnet,  he  "  fully  owns  the  divine  in- 
stitution of  Bishops  and  Priests;*  and,  in  his  well 
known  sermorf  on  the  Power  of  the  Keys,  which  is 
considered  as  containing  high  Church  notions,  he 
uses  precisely  the  same  language.  "  And  so  th6 
ministration  of  God's  word  was  derived  from  the 
Apostles  unto  others  after  them  by  imposition  of 
hands,  and  giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  the  Apos- 
tles down  to  our  days.  And  this  was  the  con- 
secration, orders,  and  unction  of  the  Apostles, 
whereby  they,  at  the  beginning,  made  Bishops 
and  Priests,  and  this  shall  continue  in  the  Church, 
even  unto  the  world's  end." 

Let  us  see  how  you  interpret  this  plain  and 
unequivocal  passage.  "  It  speaks  of  the  Apostles 
making  Bishops  and  Priests.  And  does  not  every 
Presbyterian  grant  that  there  w^ere  many  Pres- 
byters in  the  Apostles'  days  who  had  no  pastoral 
charge,  and  who  were,  of  course,  no  Bishops."! 

Thus  you  obstinately  persevere  in  making  a 
Presbyterian  of  Cranmer.   The  Archbishop  tells  us 

•  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  ii.page  7* 
X  Continuation  of  Letters,  pag-e  ?"'?. 

21 


16*2  OPllSIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  TIL 

that  the  Apostles,  in  the  beginning,  appointed 
Bishops  and  Priests,  Well,  we  are  to  understand 
hinn  as  speaking  in  the  prevalent  language  of  his 
day.  In  his  time  Bishops  and  Priests  were  dis- 
tinct orders;  they  had  been  distinct  orders,  you 
expressly  admit,  from  the  fourth  century  to  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  throughout  almost  the 
whole  extent  of  the  Christian  world.  Cranmer 
himself  w^as  a  Bishop,  and  exercised  power  over 
Presbyters.  He  had  been  raised  from  the  office  of 
Presbyter  to  that  of  Bishop  by  a  new  ordination; 
and  in  the  Ordinal  he  expressly  ascribes  the  crea- 
tion of  the  distinct  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  all  possessing  clerical  power,  to  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  liberty  which  you  take  is  contrary  to  the 
established  laws  of  criticism,  and  would  lead 
to  endless  uncertainty.  Unless  an  author  is  to 
be  construed  according  to  the  usage  of  the  pe- 
riod in  which  he  lives,  how  shall  we  ever  ascertain 
his  meaning?  Words  are  perpetually  changing 
their  signification.  If  we  abandon  the  period  m 
which  the  individual  wrote,  to  what  period  shall 
we  go?  Shall  we  wander  back  five,  or  ten,  or 
fifteen  centuries?  Cranmer  tells  us  that  Bishops 
and  Priests  were  appointed  by  the  Apostles.  He 
i!:ive3  us  no  hint  that  he  means  to  be  understood 
in  a  sense  different  from  the  received  sense  of  the 
words  in  his  time ;  he  is,  of  course,  to  be  under- 
stood as  saying  that  the  Apostles  established  dis- 
tinct and  subordinate  orders  of  the  priesthood. 
This,  however,  does  not  accord  with  your  system ; 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  163 

and,  in  attempting  to  reconcile  the  language  of 
the  Archbishop  to  your  views,  you  not  only  run 
into  the  gross  absurdity  which  I  have  just  been 
exposing,  but  contradict  yourself,  by  setting  at 
naught  a  principle  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  your  religious  society,  and  which  it  is  the  great 
object  of  your  whole  book  to  defend.  "  Does  not 
every  Presbyterian  grant  that  there  were  many 
Presbyters  in  the  AposUes'  days  who  had  no  pas- 
toral charge,  and  who  were,  of  course,  no  Bi- 
shops?"* Now,  the  very  cardinal  principle  of 
Presbyterianism  is,  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  in 
the  New  Testament,  arn  convcrtiblG  titles;  a  Pres- 
byter being  a  Bishop,  and  a  Bishop  a  Presbyter. 
Upon  this  ground  the  whole  argument,  from  the 
community  of  names,  obviously  proceeds.  But 
it  turns  out  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  always 
mean  distinct  things;  a  Presbyter  being  a  clergy- 
man without  a  pastoral  charge,  and  a  Bishop  be- 
ing a  clergyman  with  one.  If  they  have  this  dis- 
tinct signification,  how  can  they  be  convertible 
terms  ? 

But  let  us  see  whether  you  are  consistent  with 
yourself.  "  The  Apostles  gave  the  name  of  El- 
der to  the  pastors  and  rulers  of  the  Churches 
which  they  organized."t  Ii^  this  passage  we  are 
informed,  that  the  Presbyters  spoken  of  in  the 
New  Testament,  were  the  pastors  and  rulers  of 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  232.  Cranmer  says  that  the  Apostles,  m 
the  beginnin,^,  established  liisiiops  and  Piuestu.  Poh!  He  only  meant 
that  the  Apostles  appointed  some  Presbyters  with  livinj^s,  ani  some 
Presbyters  without  them.     Arc  yon  s^r^on*; ' 

•j;  Letters,  p.  .^4. 


164  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.      LET.  Vii 

particular  Churches;  but  it  now  appears  that 
Presbyters,  in  the  Apostohc  age,  were  persons 
who  had  no  pastoral  charge. 

Again—"  These  terms  are  uniformly  employed 
in  the  New  Testament  as  convertible  titles  for  the 
same  office.      An   attentive  consideration  of  the 
following  passages  will  establish  this  position  be- 
yond all  doubt.     The  first  which  1  shall  quote  is 
found  in  Acts  xx.  17,  28.     '  And  from  Miletus  he 
sent  to  Ephesus^   and  called  the  elders   (or   Pres- 
byters, U^ic^vn^ovg)  of  the  Churclu     And  when  they 
were  come  to  hhn^  he  said  unto  them,  Take  heed  unto 
yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  ivhich  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  (or  Bishops,  E7r<f)w- 
TTouf)  to  feed  the  Church  of  God  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased ivith  his  own  blood.^     In  this  passage,  it  is 
evident  that  the  same  persons  who,  in  the  17th 
verse,  are  styled  Elders  or  Presbyters,  are,  in  the 
28th,  called  Bishops.''^'' 

Here  you  tell  us,  and  tell  us  truly,  that  the 
Apostle  addresses  the  Presbyters  of  the  Church  of 
Ephesus  as  the  pastors  of  that  particular  Church. 
But  now  you  assert  that  Presbyters  in  the  Apos- 
tolic age  had  no  pastoral  charge,  and  were  not 

Bishops.t 

The  Presbyters  of  Ephesus  were  the  Bishops 
of  Ephesus ;  in  short,  the  Presbyters  and  the  Bi- 
shops of  Ephesus  were  one  and  tlie  same  body  of 
men,  with  a  double  name.  Yet  the  Bishops  of 
Ephesus  had  the  pastoral  charge  of  the  Church 

•  Ixtters,  p.  34.  7  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  232. 


-i.ET.  VII.        OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  KJ5 

there,  and  the  Presbyters  had  not  the  pastoral 
charge  of  it;  in  other  words,  one  and  the  samn 
body  of  men,  at  one  and  the  same  point  of  lime. 
were  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  and 
were  not  its  pastors. 

I  might  go  on  to  produce  other  passafies  in 
which  you  are  equally  at  war  with  yourself  on  iiut 
point  in  question.  For  example,  in  commenting 
upon  1  Peter  v.  1,  2,  you  say — "  The  construc- 
tion of  this  passage  is  obvious.  It  expressly  re- 
presents Presbyters  as  Bishops  of  the  flock,  and 
solemnly  exhorts  them  to  exercise  the  powers,  and 
perform  the  duties  of  the  office.  In  short,  the 
title  of  Bishop,  as  applied  to  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel, occurs  only  four  times  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  three  of  these  cases  there  is  complete  proof 
that  it  is  given  to  those  who  are  styled  Presbyters; 
and  in  the  fourth  case  there  is  strong  presumption 
that  it  is  applied  in  the  same  manner."* 

Here  you  say  that  Presbyters  are  Bishops  of  the 
fliock;  that  is,  pastors  of  particular  Churches,  pos- 
sessing all  the  powers,  and  subject  to  all  the  duties 
connected  with  a  fixed  charge  ;t  nay,  you  go  so 
far  as  to  affirm,  that  the  word  Bishop,  in  every  in- 
stance  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Neio  Testament^  is 
applied  to  Presbyters;  yet  now  you  tell  us  that 
Presbyters,  in  the  Apostolic  age,  were  clergymen 
without  a  pastoral  charge,  and  Bishops  clergymen 
with  one.     The  term  Bishop,  in  every  instance  in 

*  Letters,  p.  38,  39. 

f  The  very  definition  which  you  give  of  a  Scriptural  Bishop  is,  tha'. 
he  was  a  clergyman  with  a  partlcul.'ir  pastoral  charge. 


1G6  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII, 

\vhich  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  applied 
to  the  Presbyter,  and  yet  the  Presbyter  was  not  a 
Bishop. 

The  Presbyters  of  the  Apostolic  age  were  not 
Eishu})3  of  the  flock.^'  The  Presbyters  of  the 
Apostolic  age  were  Bishops  of  the  flock.f 

Again — "  The  case  of  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  is 
still  more  decisive.  The  government  of  this 
Church  is  evidently  vested  in  the  Elders."!  Here 
you  expressly  say  that  Presbyters  were  persons 
who  had  the  care  and  government  of  a  particular 
Church.  Now  you  as  expressly  say  that  Presby- 
ters were  persons  who  had  not  the  care  and  go- 
vernment of  a  particular  Church. || 

In  your  attempt  to  make  Presbyterians  of  the 
English  Reformers,  you  call  Raignolds,  StilUng- 
ileet,  and  White,  to  your  aid.  But  the  standards 
drawn  up  by  the  Reformers  in  question,  expressly 
assert  that  the  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  with  distinct  and  subordinate  powers, 
were  established  by  Almighty  God.  Of  what 
consequence,  then,  is  the  dictum  of  Raignolds, 
Stillingfleet,  or  White?  Raignolds  was  a  noted 
and  violent  Puritan.  You  have  not  pointed  us  to 
the  page  of  the  Irenicum  of  Bishop  Stilhngfleet  in 
which  the  opinion  you  ascribe  to  him  is  expressed. 
I  think  it  extremely  probable  that  you  have  mis- 
understood him.  However,  be  this  as  it  may,  it 
is  well  known  that  the  Irenicum  was  published  by 
Stilliiigfleet  al  the  early  age  of  twenty-four,  and 

*  Contiimalion  of  Letters,  p.  232.  f  Lc^^ters,  p.  38. 

1  iWd.  p.  44'.  \]  Continuation  of  Lettei*s,  p.  232. 


LET.  Vir.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  16*7 

that  he  afterwards  retracted,  most  fully  and  ex- 
plicitly, the  leading  opinions  which  it  contains. 
Your  statement  relative  to  Bishop  White  is  ex- 
tremely inaccurate.  This  excellent  Prelate  takes 
divine  right  in  the  most  rigid  sense,  as  founded. 
on  some  positive  precept,  and  as  admitting  of  no 
alteration  or  modification  even  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity.  The  great  design  of  his  pamphlet  was  to 
show  that,  in  the  necessity  to  which  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  this  country  was  reduced,  a  temporary 
departure  from  Episcopacy  would  be  perfectly 
proper.  It  was  his  express  proposition^  that  the 
departure  should  continue  only  until  the  lawful 
succession  could  be  obtained.  And  whenever 
he  speaks  of  the  Reformers,  or  other  leading 
divines  of  the  Church  of  England  as  admitting 
that  Episcopacy  is  not  of  divine  right,  he  under- 
stands divine  right  as  extending  only  to  insti- 
tutions founded  on  some  explicit  and  positive 
command  of  God  himself.*  In  this  sense  no  per- 
son has  ever  pretended  that  Epiajcopacy  is  a  divine 
ordinance.  Its  advocates  represent  it  as  an  insti- 
tution established  by  the  Apostles^  acting  in  con- 
ibrmity  to  the  will  of  Christ,  and  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit:  they  do  not  pretend 
that  there  is  any  passage  of  Scripture  command- 
ing, in  so  many  words,  that  there  shall  be  three 
distinct   and  subordinate  orders  of  the  ministry 

*  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United  States  consi- 
dered, l2mo.  Philadelphia.  1782.  Let  the  pamphlet  be  carefully  read 
through,  and  it  will  be  found  tlrat  I  hate  ^iv&n  a  oovvrrt  'icy  of  i^:f 
i'dotWB  of  its  aatlroF. 


168  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS,       LET.  VII. 

On  this  subject  Bishop  White  is  perfectly  cor- 
rect. 

"  There  having  been  an  Episcopal  power  lodged 
by  Jesus  Christ  with  his  Apostles,  and  by  them 
exercised  generally  in  person,  but  sometimes  by 
delegation,  as  in  the  instances  of  Timothy  and 
Titus;  the  same  was  conveyed  by  them,  before 
iheir  decease,  to  one  pastor  in  each  Church,  which 
generally  comprehended  all  the  Christians  in  a 
city,  and  a  convenient  surrounding  district.  Thus 
were  created  the  apostolical  successors."* 

Bishop  White,  then,  in  representing  the  English 
Reformers  as  giving  up,  in  reference  to  Episco- 
pacy, all  claim  of  divine  right,  takes  the  words  in 
a  strict  and  absolute  sense,  as  implying  positive 
precept,  and  excluding  all  departure  from  the  suc- 
cession even  in  cases  of  necessity.  He  is  very  far 
from  saying  that  the  English  Reformers  did  not 
consider  Episcopacy  as  an  Apostolic  institution. 
He  is  very  far  from  saying  that  they  did  not  regard 
it  as  established  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  in  conformity  to  the  will  of  Christ. 
How  could  he  tell  us  any  such  thing  with  the  Ordi- 
nal of  the  Church  of  England  before  his  eyes ! 

Thus  you  misrepresent  Bishop  White  alto- 
gether; retailing  to  us  his  words,  but  in  such  a 
way  that  your  readers  will  not  understand  them  in 
the  sense  which  they  were  intended  to  convey. 

The  Church  of  England,  then,  was  reformed 
upon  Episcopal  principles.    She  retained  that  con- 

C.-x^v:  of  the  Episcopal  Chtirches  considered. 


Let.  viu     opiiMons  of  the  reformers.  169 

stitution  of  the  ministry  which  had  been  esta- 
blished by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  which  had 
prevailed  for  the  long  period  of  fifteen  hundred 
years,  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  the  Christian 
world.  This  single  fact  is  of  more  weight  than 
all  the  testimonies  which  are  cited  in  your  book. 
In  the  Cliurch  of  England  the  Reformation  was 
conducted  with  the  most  profound  deliberation. 
The  eminent  men  to  whom  this  important  work 
was  committed  examined. the  subject  slowly, 
calmly,  maturely.  They  felt  their  ground  at  every 
step;  testing  all  the  doctrines  and  institutions 
to  which  their  attention  w^as  turned  by  the  stand- 
ard of  Scripture,  and  of  the  primitive  faith.  Their 
progress  from  error  to  truth  was  gradual:  We  are 
enabled  to  trace  it  with  considerable  distinctness 
by  the  books  which  they  put  out,  and  by  interest- 
ing transactions  in  which  they  participated. 

In  England,  the  Reformation  was  begun  by  the 
government,  and  by  the  higher  orders  of  the  cler- 
gy; of  course,  there  was  no  impediment  in  the 
way  of  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  whole 
subject,  or  of  any  system  of  measures  which  that 
investigation  may  have  pointed  out  as  proper  to 
be  adopted.*     In  the  countries  in  which  a  parity 


*  The  superstitions  and  arbitrary  temper  of  Henry  YITI.  indeed,  eni' 
barrassed  the  Refjrnners,  and  prevented  tliem  from  pursuing'  that  course 
which  their  own  superior  wisdom  would  have  dictated.  It  required, 
time,  however,  for  the  emancipation  of  the  Reformers  themselves  from 
some  of  the  errors  of  popery.  When  the  inimitable  youth,  Edward  VI. 
ascended  the  throne,  tiling's  had  become  ripe  for  a  thorough  change, 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  Latimer,  and  tlieir  fellow  labourers,  were,  at  lengthy 
'lelivered  frorr.  the  abs\irditie3  of  popery ;  and  th^ir  exoell^-nt  Savereio-u 

09. 


170  OPIiNIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  Vli. 

in  the  ministry  was  set  up,  the  Reformation  was 
commenced  by  the  inferior  orders,  in  opposition 
to  the  existing  government,  both  of  Church  and 
State.  The  situation  of  things  was  not  favour- 
able to  sober  and  disjjassionate  inquiry  :  on  the 
contraiy,  it  led  to  precipitation  and  irregularity. 
The  Reformers,  who  were  thus  circumstanced, 
not  being  masters  of  their  own  conduct,  were  un- 
able to  proceed  with  that  calm  and  collected  tem- 
per which  so  eminently  distinguished  their  English 
brethren.  Accordingly,  the  Church  of  England 
has  ever  been  regarded  as  the  ornament  and  bul- 
wark of  the  Protestant  cause.  The  Church  of 
Rome  has  always  viewed  her  with  an  eye  of  par- 
ticular jealousy,  and  directed  against  her  the  most 
systematic  and  persevering  opposition. 

Rut  it  was  not  in  England  alone  that  the  primi- 
tive and  scriptural  form  of  the  ministry  was  retain- 
ed. The  same  course  was  pursued  in  the  Churches 
of  Sweden  and  Denmark.  "  The  internal  go- 
vernment of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  equally  re- 
moved from  Episcopacy  on  the  one  hand,  and 
from  Presbyterianism  on  the  other;  if  we  except 
the  kingdoms  of  Sweden  and  Denmark,  who  re- 
tain the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  that 
preceded  the  Reformation,  purged,  indeed,  frorw 


was  always  ready  to  give  liis  sanction  to  every  thing  tliat  tended  to  tiic 
purity  of  religion.  There  was,  indeed,  a  most  fortunate  concurrence 
of  circumstances.  And  after  the  dark  interval  of  Mary's  reign,  the 
wise  Eliz'ibeth,  and  her  faithful  counsellors,  made  it  their  object  to 
restore  things,  as  neaMy  as  possible,  to  the  stHte  in  which  they  had 
Heen  left  by  the  primitive  Reformers. 


LET.   VU.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  RKFOUMKUS.  171 

the  superstition  and  abuses  that  rendered  it  so 
odious."* 

The  account  which  you  give  of  the  Church  of 
Denmark  and  Sweden  is  totally  inconsistent  witli 
that  of  Mosheim.     lie  distinguishes  between  the 
Church  of  those  kingdoms,    and   the   Lutheran 
Church,  as  it  is  constituted  in  Germany;  the  latter, 
he  tells  us,  has  seceded  equally  from  Episcopacy 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Presbyterianism  on  the  other: 
while   the   former  has  not  thus  seceded,   but  is 
Episcopal,  having  retained  the  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical government  which  preceded  the  aera  of  the 
Relbrmation.     But,  if  your  account  be  true,  there 
is  no  difference  between  the  Bishops  of  Sweden 
and  Denmark,  and  the  Lutheran  Superintendents. 
Mosheim,    and  his   learned   translator,    McLean, 
could   not   have  been  ignorant  on  this  point,     i 
must,  therefore,  rest  in  the  account  which  they 
have  given.     Besides,  it  appears  from  your  own 
statement,  that  the  Presbyter,  in  the  Churches  of 
Denmark  and  Sweden,  is  raised  to  the  office  of 
Bishop  by  a  new  ordination.f    This  is  not  the  case 
with  the  Lutheran  Superintendent,  and  it  marks 
a  substantial  difference  between  him  and  the  Swe- 
dish or  Danish  Bishop.    If  there  be  no  distinction^ 
by  divine  right,  between  the  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
why  should  a  new  ordination  be  thought  neces- 
sary to  convert  the  one  into  the  other?     Surely 
this  would  present,  if  your  supposition  be  correct^ 
a  most  strange  and  flagrant  inconsistency. 

*  MosheiTO*s  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  iv.  p.  287,     f  LetlPrs,  p.  24? 


172  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII, 

When  you  tell  us  that  the  first  Archbishops  and 
Bishops  of  vSweden  were  set  apart  to  their  offices 
by  mere  Presbyters,  I  would  take  the  liberty  of 
asking  on  what  authority  you  make  the  assertion. 
You  have  given  no  authority ;  and  yet  it  is  a  point 
of  so  much  importance,  in  reference  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Swedish  Church,  that  you  must 
have  been  anxious  to  place  it  beyond  the  reach  of 
controversy.     Doubtless,    therefore,   you  had   no 
authority  to  produce.     If  you  will  take  the  trouble 
«f  examining  what  Mosheim  has  said  on  this  sub- 
ject, you  will  find  that  the  Bishops  of  Sweden  and 
Denmark  were  compelled,  by  the  civil  power,  to 
submit  to  the   Reformation.^     The   Churches  of 
those  kingdoms,  then,  were,  at  no  time,  without 
a  valid   Episcopacy ;  and  thus  your   attempt  to 
pl.ice  them   upon  a  Presbyterial  foundation  has 
totally  failed. 

Even  admitting  that  it  is  customary,  in  the  Swe- 
dish and  Danish  Churches,  for  Presbyters,  in  the 
absence  of  the  Bishop,  to  ordain  Presbyters,  the 
only  consequence  is,  that  the  persons  thus  ordained 
are  destitute  of  all  clerical  power.  Still  the  Epis- 
copal succession  may  remain  uncorrupted.  If  it 
be  customary  for  Presbyters  to  ordain  Bishops, 
then,  indeed,  the  succession  is  lost ;  at  least  it  is 
lost  in  all  those  cases  in  which  it  may  be  neces- 
sary to  trace  it  through  any  other  than  the  first  or- 
der of  the  priesthood. 

If,  in  the  Swedish  and  Danish  Churches,  the 

•  -Mosheim,  vol.  iv.  p.  78 — S/t 


LKT.  VII.       O PINIONS  OF  TlIK   REFORMERS.-  11 0 

order   of  Presbyters   be   considered  as  erjiial,  or 
rather  synonymons,  by  divine  right,  with  the  or 
der  of  Bishops,  it  is  certain  that  Mosheim   and 
McLean  have  presented  a  very  erroneous  view  of 
the  subject.     For  Mosheim,  after  expressly  teUing 
us  that  the    Churches  of  Denmark  and  Sweden 
have  not  departed  from  Episcopacy,  proceeds  thus 
— "  The  Lutherans  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no 
law  of  divine  authority  which  points  out   a  dis- 
tinction between  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  with 
respect   to   rank,    dignity,   or  prerogatives;    and, 
therefore,  they  recede  from   Episcopacy.^^*     The 
term  Episcopacy,  then,  is  here  used  by  Mosheim 
as  marking  a  distinction,  by  divine  righty  between 
the  order  of  Bishops  and  that  of  Presbyters;  of 
course,  according  to  his  statement,  the  Churches 
of  Sweden  and  Denmark  recognize  this  distinc- 
tion, and  are  founded  upon  it. 

In  England,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  the  Re- 
formation proceeded  with  more  calmness,  regu- 
larity, and  deliberation,  than  in  any  other  part  of 
Europe.  The  civil  power  in  Denmark  and 
Sw  eden  conducted  the  business ;  in  England  it 
was  conducted  by  the  Bishops,  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  civil  power.  The  same  favourable 
state  of  things  did  not  any  where  else  exist.  Ger- 
many, for  example,  exhibited  a  scene  of  the  most 
dreadful  contention.  Luther  and  his  followers 
were  opposed  not  only  by  the  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority,  but  by  the  imperial  government.     The 

*  'Mosheim's  Ecciesias!lc;il  History,  vol.  iv.  p.  288 


174  OPINIONS  OP  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII. 

Reformation  being  commenced  by  the  inferior  or- 
ders of  the  clergy,  and  by  the  people,  Episcopacy 
was,  of  course,  laid  aside.  Had  Luther  been  a 
Bishop  when  he  entered  upon  his  opposition  to 
the  Papacy,  the  Lutheran  Church,  without  doubt, 
would  have  been  reformed  upon  primitiv^e  ground ; 
but  being  opposed  by  the  whole  Episcopal  order^ 
Luther  and  his  fellow  labourers  were  reduced,  as 
fhey  alleged,  to  the  necessity  of  founding  their 
ecclesiastical  system  upon  new  principles.*  Not 
being  able  to  procure  Bishops,  they  established 
Superintendents,  with  all  the  powers  of  Bishops, 
and  wanting  nothing  but  consecration  to  invest 


*  It  may  not  have  been  absohitely  impossible  for  the  foreig-n  Reformers 
to  procure  Bishops;  undoubtedly  there  was  great  difficulty  in  the  way; 
and  the  Reformers  themselves  considered  the  difficulty  so  great  as  to 
plead  the  necessity  of  their  situation  in  excuse  for  their  departure  from 
Episcopacy.     The  circumstances  of  the  case,   therefore,  can  be  con- 
sidered only  as  excnain^^  not  as  justifying^  the  conduct  of  the  Reform- 
ers.    Indeed,  it  is  no  easy  matter  to  determine  the  degree  of  difficulty 
in  procuring  Bishops  that  existed  at  the  period  of  which  we  are  speak- 
ing.    The  civil  government,  in  some  of  the  countries  of  Europe,  was 
extremely  hostile  to  the  Reformation,  and,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Papal  court,  immediately  adopted  measures  of  violence  towards  any 
Bishops  who  showed  a  disposition  favourable  to  the  cause  of  the  Pro- 
testants.    This  was  particularly   the  case   in  France  and  Germany. 
Whether  the  Reformers  were  justifiable  in  proceeding  upon  the  basis 
of  Presbyterial  ordination,  even  supposing  them  to  have  laboured  under 
an  absolute  impossihiUly  of  procuring  Bishops,  is  a  question  into  which 
I  do  not  choose  at  present  to  enter.     At  all  events,  they  were  bound  to 
adopt  the  Episcopal  constitution  as  soon  as  they  had  the  power  of  doing 
no.     But  it  is  extremely  difficult  for  men  to  retrace  their  steps ;  parti- 
cularly wlien  tljey  are  wandering  from  the  true  course.     A  thousand 
obstacles  immediately  occur  to  prevent  a  change.  We  can  never,  there- 
fore, be  too   careful   in  avoiding  all  departure  from    divine    institu- 
tions ;  for  it  is  impossible  to  c.dculate  the  extent  of  the  evil  which 
eyen  a  slight  departure  may  ultimately  produce. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OP  THE  REFORMERS.  l1^ 

them  with  the  full  Episcopal  character.  Did 
these  men  believe  in  ministerial  parity  as  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  and  of  the  Primitive  Church? 
(f  such  were  their  opinion,  why  did  they  not  es- 
tablish parity,  and  make  it  the  basis  of  their  ec- 
clesiastical system  ?  Besides,  in  adopting  the 
plan  of  distinct  and  subordinate  orders  of  the  mi- 
nistry, Luther  and  his  friends  represented  it  as 
necessary  to  prevent  schism,  and  to  secure  the 
peace  and  order  of  the  Church.  Let  it  be  recol- 
lected, too,  that  they  established  the  system  of 
imparity  as  the  permanent  system  of  their  associa- 
tion. If,  then,  they  believed  the  Scriptural  sys- 
tem to  be  a  system  of  parity,  it  follow  s,  that  they 
thought  themselves  wiser  than  the  Apostles,  and 
that  they  regarded  a  departure  from  the  divine 
law  as  absolutely  necessary  to  preserve  the  Church 
from  destruction.  It  is  impossible  to  evade  this 
conclusion.  If,  indeed,  the  plan  had  been  a  tern- 
porarij  imparity  in  the  ministry,  to  be  quickly  suc- 
ceeded by  a  permanent  parity,  the  conclusion  might 
not  so  irresistibly  follow.  But  to  say  that  Luther 
regarded  ministerial  parity  as  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture, while,  at  the  same  time,  he  established  im- 
parity as  the  perpetual  rule  of  his  ecclesiastical 
system,  is,  certainly,  to  place  him  in  no  very  fa- 
vourable point  of  light. 

But  I  undertake  to  assert,  that  Luther  and  Me- 
iancthon  were  desirous  of  reforming  the  Church 
fully  upon  Episcopal  principles.  Evidence  of  thi?» 
is  to  be  produced  which  you  will  find  it,  I  presume. 
.110  easy  matter  to  resist. 


'17B  opinions  of  the  reformers*     let.  vh* 

Luther  professes  that  if  the  Popish  Bishops 
would  cease  to  persecute  tlie  Gospel,  ••'  we  would 
acknowledge  them  as  our  Fathers,  and  willingly 
obey  their  authority,  which  we  find  supported  bij  the 
ivord  of  God,'^'^  The  same  doctrine  is  advanced 
by  Luther  in  a  tract  entitled  his  Resolutions.f 

Mark  the  following  striking  passages  from  tlie 
Augustan  Confession,  and  the  Apology  for  that 
Confession,  both  of  which  were  drawn  up  by  Me- 
iancthon  !  "  The  Bishops  might  easily  retain  the 
obedience  due  unto  them,  if  they  urged  us  not 
to  keep  those  traditions  which  we  cannot  keep 
with  a  good  conscience. "t  "  We  have  oft  pro- 
tested, that  we  do  greatly  approve  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal polity  and  degrees  in  the  Church,  and,  as 
much  as  lieth  in  us,  do  desire  to  conserve  them. 
We  do  not  mislike  the  authority  of  Bishops."^ 
"  I  would  to  God  it  lay  in  me  to  restore  the  go- 
vernment of  Bishops.  For  I  see  what  manner  of 
Church  we  shall  have,  the  ecclesiastical  polity 
being  dissolved.  I  do  see  that  hereafter  will  grow 
up  a  greater  tyranny  in  the  Church  than  there 
ever  was  before."||  "  By  what  right  or  law  may 
we  dissolve  the  ecclesiastical  polity,  if  the  Bi- 
shops will  grant  to  us  that  which  in  reason  they 
©ught  to  grant?     And  if  it  were  lawful  for  us  to  do 

*  See  Chandler's  Appeal  Defended,  p.  239. 

t  Vol.  i.  folio,  p.  309.  Probo  quamlibet  civitatem  habere  debere 
Episcopum  proprium  jure  divinoy  quod  ex  Paulo  ad  Titum  ostendo 
dicente — hujus  rei  gratia  reliqui  te  Crelse,  &c 

t  Augustan  Confession,  p.  109. 

§  Apol.  Augustan  Confession,  p.  363. 

I    Apol.  An|fu«t5ui  ('nnri-ssion,  p.  G?** 


LET.  Vri.       OPINIOMS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  177 

SO,  yet  surely  it  were  not  expedient.  Luther  was 
ever  of  this  opinion."* 

The  following  stroni^  hmguage  is  contained  in 
a  letter  written  by  Melancthon  to  Luther,  in  the 
year  1530.  "  Zuingle  has  sent  hiUier,  in  print, 
his  Confession  of  Faith.  You  would  say  neither 
more  nor  less,  than  that  he  is  not  in  his  senses. 
At  one  stroke  he  would  abolish  all  ceremonies, 
and  he  would  have  no  Bishops y\ 

The  careful  historian  Strype,  after  stating  that 
in  the  Reforj nation,  as  conducted  by  Cranmer, 
the  Ecclesiastical  Polity  w  as  retained,  adds,  "  which 
the  wise  Melancthon  did  so  approve  of,  that  he 
professed  he  had  often  propounded  it  in  Diets  of 
the  German  nation."  "  And  this  I  add,"  con- 
tinues Strype,  "  that  it  might  be  observed  how 
Archbishop  Cranmer  went  by  the  same  measures 
in  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England; 
maintaining  the  Hierarchy,  and  the  revenues, 
dignities,  and  customs  of  it,  against  many  in  those 
times,  that  were  for  the  utter  abolishing  them, 
as  relics  of  Popery.  Such  a  correspondence  there 
was  between  our  Archbishop  and  the  wisest,  mo- 
deratest,  and  most  learned  Divines  of  Germany.";: 

It  is  clear,  then,  from  the  evidence  which  has 
been  adduced,  that  the  Lutheran  Reformers  were 
decidedly  opposed  to  the  system  of  ministerial 
parity;  indeed,  that  they  considered  it  as  utterly 
inconsistent    with   the    peace    and   order  of  the 

*  Melanct.  Camerarius  Hist.  Con.  August,  p.  389. 

t  See  Milner's  History  of  the  Cliurchof  Christ,  vol,  v.  p.  577 

i  Strype*5  Memoriais  of  Cranmer,  p,  287,  ?H8 

23 


178  OPINIONS  OF  TME  REFORMKRfe.       LET.  VII* 

Church.  It  is  equally  clear  that  they  were  ex- 
tremely desirous  of  retaining  the  Episcopal  con- 
stitution of  the  ministry,  and  of  founding  all  their 
proceedings  upon  it.  They  repeatedly  offered  to 
receive  Bishops,  and  to  place  them  at  the  head  of 
their  system.  When  all  this  is  taken  in  con- 
nexion with  the  very  pointed  language  of  some  of 
the  extracts  which  have  been  exhibited,  it  is  diffi- 
cult, if  not  impossible,  to  resist  the  conclusion,  that 
the  Lutheran  Reformers  considered  Episcopacy  as 
a  primitive  and  Apostolic  institution.  Accordingly, 
not  being  able,  as  they  supposed,  to  procure  Bi- 
sho[)3,  they  established  Superintendents  with  Epis- 
copal authority,  and  wanting  nothing  to  make 
them  real  Bishops  but  a  regular  consecration. 
Still,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  certainly  appear, 
from  some  of  the  testimonies  which  you  have 
cited,  that  the^Lutheran  Reformers  really  consi- 
dered ministerial  parity  as  the  primitive  and  scrip- 
tural doctrine.  Indeed,  it  is  no  easy  matter  to 
ascertain  the  precise  ideas  which  they  entertained 
on  the  subject  in  question ;  their  views,  it  is  very 
probable,  were  not  a  little  fluctuating.  The  true 
conclusion,  upon  a  fair  view  of  the  whole  subject, 
is,  perhaps,  this.  If  Luther  and  Melancthon  had 
been  Bishops,  they  would  have  reformed  upon 
Episcopal  principles,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  di- 
vine right  of  Episcopacy  would  have  been  the 
unequivocal  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
But  being  nothing  more  than  Presbyters,  they  la- 
boured, in  vain,  to  procure  the  Episcopal  succes- 
sion.    Oi)posed  by  the  whole  Episcopal  order  in 


lET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMEUb.  17!? 

Germany,  they  were  reduced,  as  they  siip]wsed, 
to  the  necessity  of  proceeding  without  it :  thej 
did  proceed  without  it,  and  set  on  foot  Presbyte- 
rial  ordination ;  to  wliich  they  probably  reconciled 
themselves,  in  the  first  instance,  on  the  ground 
that  necessity  will  justify  a  departure  from  gene- 
ral laws.  But  the  irregularity  of  their  practice 
soon  began  to  produce  some  effect  upon  theii 
opinions.  Having  adopted  Presbyterial  ordina- 
tion, they  defended  it  on  the  ground  of  neces- 
sity; but  gradually,  from  the  well  known  con- 
stitution of  the  human  mind,  proceeded  to  talk 
of  Bishop  and  Presbyter  as  being  one  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  at  length  to  represent  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Bishop  to  the  Presbyter^  as  founded 
in  mere  human  policy.  This  is  the  natural  course 
of  things.  An  irregular  example  being  set,  it  is 
at  first  excused,  then  justified,  and  finally  clothed 
with  a  divine  sanction.  In  this  way,  too,  the 
fluctuating  and  contradictory  language  which 
occurs  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  original 
Reformers,  is  to  be  accounted  for.  Having  de- 
parted from  the  scriptural  and  primitive  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church,  they  found  themselves  in  a 
perplexed  and  embarrassed  situation.  It  is  natu- 
ral even  to  the  best  men  to  attempt  to  place  their 
own  conduct  in  the  most  favourable  point  of  light : 
hence,  having  acted  on  the  ground  of  Presbyte- 
rial ordination,  the  Reformers,  although  they 
pleaded  necessity  at  first,  and  recognized  Episco- 
pacy as  a  primitive  institution,  still  were  not  dis- 
in(;lined  to  find  arguments  in  Scripture  that  migh/ 


180  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS,       LET.  VII. 

sanction  ordination  by  the  hands  of  Presbyters. 
There  are  few,  if  any,  minds  sufficiently  powerful 
to  resist  this  tendency  of  our  nature:  so  that  a 
temporary  departure,  on  alleged  principles  of  ex- 
pediency or  necessity,  from  an  institution  ac- 
knowledged to  be  divine,  will  seldom  fail  to  lead 
in  the  end  to  a  total  and  permanent  departure  from 
such  institution. 

These  observations  are  applicable  to  Luther 
and  Melancthon,  but  in  a  still  greater  degree  to 
Calvin,  whose  conduct  and  opinions  1  shall  nov/ 
proceed,  with  all  possible  brevity,  to  consider. 

In  page  243  of  your  I^etters  you  thus  write — 

"  The  whole  body  of  the  Reformers,  with 
scarcely  any  exceptions,  agreed  in  maintaining 
that  ministerial  parity  was  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture and  of  the  Primitive  Church."  And  in  page 
237  of  the  same  work,  speaking  of  Calvin,  you 
say — "  he  totally  rejected  all  ministerial  impa- 
rity." 

It  was  for  the  purpose  of  testing  these  positions 
that  I  entered  into  a  view  of  the  conduct  and 
language  of  the  Reformers.  We  will  now  briefly 
examine  how  far  they  are  applicable  to  the  case 
of  Calvin. 

1.  It  is  capable  of  being  completely  proved 
that  Calvin  did  not  profess  to  lay  aside  the  order 
of  Bishops,  because  he  preferred  the  Presbyterial 
system,  but  that  he  pleaded  necessity  in  excuse 
for  his  conduct ;  declaring  his  perfect  readiness, 
indeed,'  his  strong  desire,  to  embrace  Episcopacy, 
whenever  he  should  be  able  to  procure  it  without 


LI.T.   VII.        OPINIONS  or   illi:  lUlFORIVfKRJ^,  ioJ 

submilling  to  llie  corniptionp^,    and  the  aibifunv 
claims  of  the  Church  of  Koine. 

See  the  explicit  language  which  he  ii3cs  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith  wliich  he  composed  in  the 
name  of  the  French  Churches. 

"  In  the  mean  time,  we  would  not  have  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  or  of  tliose  Pastors,  or 
Superintendents,  to  whom  the  charge  of  govern- 
ing the  Church  is  committed,  taken  awa/.  We 
confess,  therefore,  tliat  these  Bishops  or  Pastors 
are  reverently  to  be  heard,  so  far  forth,  as,  accord- 
ing to  their  function,  they  teach  the  word  of  God."* 

In  one  of  hh  Epistles,  Calvin  discusses  the 
question — "  \\  liat  is  to  be  done  if  a  Popish  Bishop 
shall  be  converted  to  the  Reformed  Rclisrion  ?" 
He  thus  decides — "  It  is  such  a  Bishop-r3  part  to 
do  his  utmost,  that  all  the  parishes  that  belong  to 
his  bishoprick  be  purged  from  all  errors,  and 
from  the  w'orship  of  idols ;  showing  himself  a  pat- 
tern to  all  the  Curates  of  his  Diocess,  and  induc- 
ing them  to  admit  that  reformation  to  which  we 
are  invited  by  the  word  of  God;  and  which  alto- 
gether correspondeth  to  the  state  and  practice  of 
the  Primitive  Church."  Calvin  concludes,  that 
the  possessions  and  authority  of  the  converted 
Bishop  should  be  left  with  him.f 


*  Confes.s.  Fidel  nomine  Gall.  Eccles. 

-j-  Calvin.  Epist.  p.  466.  See,  on  this  point,  Bishop  Hall's  Divin<; 
Right  of  Episcopacy,  part  1.  sect.  2.  where  tlie  good  Brsliop  breakr; 
out—"  Thus  he.  wisely  and  moderately:  Not  first  of  all,  stripping  liim 
of  .his  Episcopal  power,  as  some  hot  heads  wcyAd  have  done.  You 
hear  how  judicious  and  moderate  Calvin's  opinion  was  then;  and  had 
^le  been  in  vojjv  lute  pretended   Vssemldv  at  Clas"-ow,  or  this  of  Ediii 


182  (iPlNlOlNJ)  OF  THE  REFORMERS."     LET.  VII, 

Calvin  severely  censures  the*  Prebends  and 
Clergy  of  Collen,  for  endeavouring  to  put  their 
Archbishop  out  of  his  place,  inasmuch  as  he  had 
declared  in  favour  of  reformation.*  Writing  to 
Ithavius,  a  Polonian  Bishop,  whom  he  styles  illus- 
trious and  reverend  Lord  J3ishop,  far  from  advis- 
ing him  to  lay  aside  his  Episcopacy,  he  exhorts 
him  to  consider  what  place  he  holdeth,  and  ivhat 
burden  is  imposed  upon  him.f  In  his  Epistle  to 
the  king  of  Poland,  Calvin  expresses  his  approba- 
tion of  all  the  degrees  of  the  Hierarchy  of  the 
Ancient  Church,  even  including  the  order  of  Pa- 
triarchs ;  and  he  seems  to  advise  the  king  to  in- 
troduce the  system  into  his  own  dominions.! 

The  Duke  of  Somerset,  Protector  of  England, 
in  the  minority  of  Edward  VI.  wrote  to  Calvin  on 
the  subject  of  the  Reformation  of  the  English 
Church.  What  was  Calvin's  reply  ?  Did  he  con- 
demn the  office  of  Bishop,  as  unfounded  in  Scrip- 
ture ?  Did  he  advise  that  Episcopacy  should  be 
laid  aside,  and  Presbyterial  order  substituted  in  its 
place  ?  Very  far  otherwise — Not  a  word  escapes 
liim  in  disparagement  of  the  Episcopal  office :  on 
the  contrary,  taking  the  ground  that  the  Bishops 


burg-li,  AvnaL  vote  he  would  have  given.  How  happy  were  it  for  yooi" 
Churches  if  all  among  you,  wlio  so  much  honour  his  name,  would  as 
readily  submit  to  his  judgment.  Sure  I  am,  had  it  been  so  with  you, 
you  had  been  as  far  from  defying  Lpiscopacy  in  holy  professors,  as  you 
are  now  from  truth  and  peace." 

•  Calvin.  Epist.  p.  517. 

f  Johannes  Calvinus  illustri  et  revendo  Domino  Jacobo  Ithavio  Epl^ 
copo  Epist,  p.  28r. 

4  Calvin.  Sereniss.  llegl  Polon. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REIORMEIlS.  183 

ought  to  keep  their  place  in  the  Rcrormcd  Church, 
lie  thus  writes : 

"  They  must  all  of  them  1)c  sworn,  the  Bishops 
themselves  as  well  as  the  Hectors  of  every  parish, 
to  deliver  no  other  doctrine  in  their  sermons,  but 
Such  as  is  contained  in  the  Articles  of  Religion."^ 

It  would  appear,  indeed,  from  a  well  attested 
fact,  that  Calvin  made  an  actual  attempt,  at  one 
period,  to  introduce  the  Episcopal  constitution 
into  the  Church  of  Geneva. 

Take  the  following  passages  from  the  excellent 
and  accurate  historian,  Strype.  "  How  Calvin 
stood  affected  in  the  said  point  of  Episcopacy, 
and  how  readily  and  gladly  he  and  other  heads  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  would  have  received  it, 
is  evident  enough  from  his  writings  and  Epistles.'-f 
"  They  (the  foreign  Protestants)  took  such  great 
joy  and  satisfaction  in  this  good  king  (Edward  VI.) 
and  his  establishment  of  religion,  that  Bullinger, 
Calvin,  and  others,  in  a  letter  to  him,  offered  to 
make  him  their  defender,  and  to  have  Bishops  in 
their  Churches,  as  there  were  in  England ;  with  a 
tender  of  their  service  to  assist  and  unite  together."! 
This  scheme  apj:)ears  to  have  been  defeated  by  a 
forgery  of  the  Papists.  The  last  letter  of  Calvin 
on  the  subject  was  intercepted  by  Bonner  and 
Gardiner,  two  Romish  Bishops,  who  returned  an 
ungracious  answer,  which  offended  Calvin,  and 
led  him  to  give  up  the  project.     This  is  asserted 

*  Calv.  in  Eplst.  ad  Ang-llze  Protectorem. 

f  Strype's  Life  of  Archbishop  Parker,  p.  69,  7(^- 

^  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  2^?, 


iSi.  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMER^.       LET.  VII. 

in  a  paper  in  the  hand  writing  of  Archbishop  Ab- 
bot, found  among  the  manuscripts  of  Archbishop 
Usher,  and  published  by  the  historian  Strype.^ 

In  perfect  agreement  with  this  is  the  celebrated 
passage  in  Calvin's  work  on  the  necessity  of 
reforming  the  Church.  ''  If  they  will  gi\e  us 
such  an  Hierarchy,  in  which  the  Bishops  have  such 
a  pre-eminence  as  that  they  do  not  refuse  to  be 
subject  unto  Christ,  &c.  &c.  then  I  will  confess 

*  "  Perusing  some  papers  of  our  predecessor  M.itthew  Paiker,  we 
find  tliat  John  Calvin,  and  others  of  the  Protestant  Ciuirchesof  Germany 
and  elsewhere,  would liavc  had  Episcopacy,  if  permitted.  And  whereas 
John  Calvin  had  sent  a  letter  in  King  Edward  VI.  reign,  to  have  con- 
ferred with  the  Clergy  of  England  about  some  things  to  this  effect,  two 
(popish)  Bishops,  viz.  Gardiner  and  Bonner,  intercepted  tlie  same; 
Tvhereby  Mr.  Calvin's  offcrture  perished-  And  he  received  an  answer, 
as  if  it  had  been  from  the  reformed  Divines  of  those  times  ;  wherein 
they  checked  him,  and  slighted  his  pi-oposals.  From  which  time  John 
Calvin  and  the  Church  of  England  were  at  variance  in  several  points  i 
Vi'hich  otherwise,  through  God's  mercy,  had  been  qualified,  if  those  pa- 
pers of  iiis  proposals  had  been  discovered  unto  the  Queen's  majesty 
during  Joiin  Calvin's  life.  But  being  not  discovered  until,  or  about 
ilhe  sixth  year  of  her  majesty's  reign,  her  majesty  much  lamented  they 
were  not  found  sooner:  v.hicli  she  expressed  before  her  council  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  presence  of  her  great  friends,  Sir  Henry  Sidney, 
and  Sir  V/illiam  Cecil."! 

T'he  important  fact,  above  stated,  corresponds  with  the  part  acted 
by  Calvin  at  the  conferences  which  were  held  at  Worms,  by  order  of 
the  Emperor  Charles  V.  Calvin  accompanied  the  delegates  who  were 
.sent  by  the  Protestants  to  that  assembly.  In  the  articles  drawn  up  by 
these  delegates  on  this  occasion,  is  the  following  sentence.  "  Our 
learned  men  have  expressly  yielded  ordination  to  Bishops,  if  there  may 
be  a  Reformation."  Thus  it  appears  that  Luther,  Melancthon,  and 
Calvin,  were  quite  disposed  to  reform  the  Ciiurch  on  the  ground  of 
Episcopacy — that  they  deliberately  offered  to  do  so — and  that  they  finally 
proceeded  on  a  different  system,  from  the  difficulty  of  procuring  Bi- 
>1iop.=:  without  yielding  to  the  demands  of  the  Cluirch  o?  Rome. 

t  Str^'l).•'s  Jnif'  of  P/rkf  .  p.  7h- 


l.E'r.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  185 

that  they  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas,  if  any  such 
shall  be  found,  who  will  not  reverence  it,  and 
submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedi- 
ence."* 

Does  not  tJic  evidence  thus  cited  abundantly 
prove  that  Calvin  preferred  the  Episcopal  consti- 
tution ;  that  he  was  desirous  of  seeing  it  universally 
established;  that  he  regarded  it  as  the  solemn 
duty  of  all  the  Reformers  to  adopt  it;  and,  indeed, 
that  he  even  viewed  all  those  who  should  refuse 
to  submit  to  it,  where  it  could  be  procured,  as 
unworthy  of  the  Christian  name? 

The  testimony  which  I  have  brought  forward 
is  of  the  most  unequivocal  character.  Neverthe- 
less, you  shrink  not  from  the  arduous  task  of  ex- 
plaining it  away.  Let  us  see,  for  a  moment,  how 
far  you  ha\^e  succeeded.  On  the  striking  passage 
from  the  work  of  Calvin,  de  Necessitate  Ecclesiae 
Reformandse,  you  thus  comment — "  It  is  only  say- 
ing that  Calvin  stood  ready  to  approve  of  a  scrip- 
tural and  primitive  Episcopacy,  whenever  it  should 
be  introduced.  And  would  not  all  Presbyterians 
say  the  same  thing  ?  Nay,  it  is  the  happiness  of 
our  Church,  that  we  have  such  an  Episcopacy." 
"  The  venerable  Reformer  meant  no  other. "f 

Permit  me  to  ask  you  whether  you  seriously 
propose  this  as  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sage in  question?  Inveterate  prejudice  has  truly  a 
wonderful  power  in  blinding  the  understanding. 

*  Joannis  Calvini  tracts  tus  thecloglcl  omnes,  in  nnum  volumert  ccrtis 
classibus  congesti,  &c.  p.  69. 

t  Confmaation  of  Tetters,  p.  303. 

2\ 


1§G  OriMON3  0F  THE  UEFOKMEKS.       LET.  Vil. 

Calvin  was  in  [)05session  of  the  Presbyterial  form 
of  Church  government,  which  you  style  the  only 
scriptural  and  primitive  Episcopacij :  to  tliis  form  he 
had  aiready  submitted.  Wlien  cliarged  with  de- 
parting from  the  primitive  Episcopal  constitution 
of  the  Church,  he  replies — (Jive  me  an  Episco- 
pacy in  which  the  Bishops  shall  not  refuse  to  be 
subject  to  Christ,  and  I  will  most  reverently  re- 
ceive it; — that  is,  according  to  your  interpreta- 
tion, give  me  Presbyterial  Episcopacy,  to  which 
I  have  already  conformed,  and  I  will  conform  to 

it. 

After  this  specimen  of  your  manner  of  getting 
lid  of  the  testimony  of  Calvin,  it  can  hardly  be 
necessary  to  detain  the  reader  w  ith  your  explana- 
tions of  other  passages,  of  a  similar  character, 
from  his  works. 

2.  13 ut  I  go  much  further,  and  undertake  to 
aho^v  that  Calvin  regarded  Episcopacy  as  an  in- 
stitution of  the  Apostles,  and,  therefore,  binding 
upon  all  Christians;  insomuch  that  nothing  but 
the  greatest  urgency  of  circumstances  could  ex- 
cuse those  who  should  fail  to  conform  to  it,  from 
the  charge  of  deep  criminality.  The  last  part 
of  til  is  proposhion,  is,  indeed,  proved  incontesti- 
bly  l)y  the  single  passage  from  the  treatise  on  the 
Reformation  of  the  Church :  Let  us  see  whether 
the  first  part  of  the  proposition  is  not  susceptible 
of  being  established  with  equal  certainty. 

In  sj)eaking  of  Jerome's  comment  on  Isaiah  vi. 
Calvin  uses  these  words — "  The  Bishop  was  not 
§0  abwvG  the  rest  in  honour  and  dignity  that  he 


1.ET.  VII.      OPINIONS  OF  Till'-  niu'OUMnr.s.  115? 

had  dominion  over  his  fellows.  But  what  odicc 
the  Consul  had  in  the  Senate^  to  propose  matters, 
to  ask  opinions,  to  go  before  the  others  with  conn- 
selhng,  admonisliing,  and  exhorting,  to  ^oirm //?/^ 
whole  matter  ivit/i  his  authority,  and  to  put  in  exe- 
cution what  is  decreed  by  common  counsel,  the 
same  office  hath  the  Bishop  in  the  assembly  of 
Priests."  "  But  if  the  Bishops,"  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  the  judicious  Hooker,  "  were  so  far  in 
dignity  above  other  ministers,  as  the  Consuls  of 
Rome,  for  their  year,  above  other  senators,  it  is 
as  much  as  we  require." 

In  the  same  spirit,  Calvin  represents  it  as  highly 
probable  that  St.  James  was  Prefect  of  the  Church 
of  Jerusalem.*  A  Prefect  is  a  chief  officer  or 
governor.  It  is  quite  absurd  to  compare  him  with 
a  Presbyterian  Moderator,  who  is  nothing  more 
than  a  mere  temporary  chairman,  appointed  for 
the  purpose  of  keeping  order  in  debate. 

Further — "  We  learn  also,  from  this  place,  that 
there  was  not  then  such  an  equality  among  the 
ministers  of  the  Church,  but  that  some  one  pre- 
sided in  authority  and  counsel."! 

Here  Calvin  is  treating  of  the  Church  as  it  ex- 
isted in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  it  is  or- 
ganized in  Scripture.  Well — He  expressly  dis- 
claims the  idea  of  ministerial  parity — He  declares 
that  some  one  presided  in  authority  and  counsel. 
And  how  do  you  get  over  this  explicit  language? 
Why,  you  tell  us  that  Calvin  merely  means  to  say. 

*  Jn  Oalat.  c.  ii.  v,  9.  t  Com.  on  Titus  i.  J 


188  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII. 

that  the  passage  in  question  recognizes  the  legality 
of  the  Presbyterian  practice  of  choosing  a  Mode- 
rator to  preside  in  Presbyteries  and  Synods.  What 
authority  has  a  Presbyterian  Moderator  over  his 
fellow  Presbyters?  None.  He  merely  presides  and 
keeps  order  during  the  sitting  of  the  Presbytery. 
Does  he  preside  in  authority  as  Paul  represents 
Titus  to  have  presided  in  the  Church  of  Crete  r 
The  supposition  is  an  insult  to  common  sense 
itself. 

Take  the  passage  precisely  as  translated  by 
yourself,*  and  the  whole  object  of  it  is  to  show, 
not  that  Titus  was  a  Presbyterian  Moderator,  but 
that  he  was  not  sole  and  absolute  ruler  in  Crete ; 


*  *'  It  may  be  objected,  that  too  much  power  seems  to  be  given  to 
Titusy  when  the  Apostle  commands  him  to  appoint  ministers  over  all 
the  Churches.  This,  it  may  be  said,  is  little  less  than  kingly  power ; 
for,  on  this  plan,  the  right  of  choice  is  taken  away  from  the  particu- 
lar Churches,  and  tlie  riglit  of  judging  in  the  case  from  the  college  of 
Pastors ;  and  this  would  be  to  profane  the  whole  of  the  sacred  disci- 
pline of  the  Church.  But  tlie  answer  is  easy.  Every  thing  w;is?iof  en- 
inisted  to  the  will  of  Tttus  as  an  individual,  nor  was  he  allowed  to 
impose  such  Bishops  on  the  Churches  as  he  pleased ;  but  he  was  com- 
manded to  preside  In  the  elections,  as  a  ModeratoVy  as  it  is  necessary 
for  some  one  to  do.  This  is  a  mode  of  speaking  exceedingly  common. 
Thus  a  Consul,  or  Regent,  or  Dictator,  is  said  to  create  Consuls,  be- 
cause he  coiivenes  assemblies  for  the  purpose  of  making  choice  of  them. 
So  also  Luke  uses  the  same  mode  of  speaking  concerning  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  m  iht  Jicts  of  the  Jipostles ;  not  tliat  tliey  alone,  authorita- 
tively appointed  Pastors  over  the  Churches,  without  their  being  tried 
or  approved;  but  they  ordained  suitable  men,  wlio  had  been  ekcted, 
or  chosen  by  the  people.  We  learn  also,  from  this  place,  thai  there 
•was  not,  then,  such  an  equality  among  the  ministers  of  the  Church, 
as  was  inconsistent  with  some  one  presiding  in  authority  and  council. 
This,  however,  is  nothing  like  the  tymnnieal  and  unscriplural  p7-elaqf 
which  reigns  in  the  papacy.  I'lie  plan  of  the  Apostles  was  extremely 
different."  Miller's  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  294,  295,  296. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  189 

that  his  power  might  be  checked  and  limited  by 
that  of  the  people  on  one  side,  and  of  the  Pres- 
byters on  the  other.  Calvin  illustrates  the  sub- 
ject by  comparing  the  power  of  Titus  in  the  Church 
of  Crete,  to  the  power  of  a  Consul,  Regent,  or 
Dictator,  who  convenes  deliberative  assemblies, 
and  presides  in  them.  He  illustrates  the  subject, 
also,  by  comparing  the  power  exercised  by  Titus 
Ti  Crete  to  tlie  power  of  ordination  exercised  by 
^aul  and  Barnabas  in  the  Churches  which  they 
visitefcV  These  Apostles,  Calvin  tells  us,  did  not, 
])y  their  sole  authority,  select  persons  to  be  or- 
dained, and  without  any  trial  or  approbation,  im- 
pose them  upon  the  Churches ;  but  an  election  or 
approbation  on  the  part  of  the  people  was  neces- 
sary before  the  Apostles  could  exercise  the  ordain- 
ing power.  With  the  accuracy  of  Calvin  on  this 
point  of  popular  election,  in  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles, I  am  not  now  concerned ;  but  the  compa- 
rison proves  that  he  regarded  the  distinction  be- 
tween Titus  and  the  Presbyters  under  him^  as 
similar  to  that  between  Paul  and  B-arnabas  and 
the  Presbyters  and  people  of  the  cities  in  which 
they  administered  the  rite  of  ordination.  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  not  absolute  on  this  point;  they 
could  not  ordain  such  persons  as  they  might  please, 
independently  of  every  other  tribunal :  the  peo- 
ple were  entitled  to  be  heard  as  to  the  fitness  of 
candidates.  So  Titus  was  not  an  absolute  ruler; 
his  power  being  limited  by  that  of  the  Presbyters 
and  people  over  whom  he  authoritatively  presided. 
Such  is  the  reasoning  of  Calvin.     It  can  never  be 


190  o^INIO^*s  ep  the  hkfoiimers.     let.  rn, 

made  to  refer  lo  a  mere  Presbyterian  Moderator- 
fthip. 

That  I  have  interpreted  Calvin  accurately,  in 
this  instance,  will  further  ajipear  from  the  word^ 
which  immediately  follow  the  passage  imder  con- 
sideration. "  We  learn,  also,  from  this  place, 
that  there  was  not  then  such  an  equality  among 
the  ministers  of  the  Church,  but  that  some  one 
presided  in  authority  and  counsel.  This,  how- 
ever, is  nothing  like  the  tyrannical  and  unscriptu- 
ral  prelacy  which  reigns  in  the  papacy."  Now, 
Calvin  expressly  declared,  that  if  he  could  have 
such  an  hierarchy  as  that  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, he  would  embrace  it,  and  submit  to  it  with 
the  utmost  affection  and  reverence.  The  passage 
under  consideration,  therefore,  can  be  regarded, 
certainly,  as  nothing  less  than  an  explicit  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  apostolic  institution  of  distinct 
and  subordinate  orders  of  ministers  in  the  Church 
of  Christ.  Titus  is  admitted  to  have  been  the 
supreme  governor  of  the  Church  of  Crete,  with 
power  to  direct  and  control,  in  certain  respects, 
the  other  ministers  of  the  word. 

One  passage  of  this  kind  is  sufficient  to  out- 
weigh a  thousand  vague  and  indirect  testimonies. 
I  shall,  therefore,  trespass  on  the  patience  of  the 
reader  no  further,  on  this  point,  than  in  presenting 
a  single  declaration  of  the  same  unequivocal  cha- 
racter, from  a  letter  written  by  Calvin  to  an  old 
friend,  who  had  become  a  Bishop  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.  In  this  letter,  although  it  is  very  long, 
Viot  a  word  occurs  unfriendly  to  the  office  of  Bishop: 


LET.  VH.       OPINIONS  OP  THE  REFOKMERSt  191 

on  the  contrary,  the  ofTice  is  expressly  recognized 
as  of  divine  institution.* 

What,  now,  if  you  should  be  able  to  cite  de- 
clarations of  Calvin  which  seem  to  be  of  a  differ- 
ent spirit  and  tendency?  We  must  come  to  one 
of  two  conclusions.  Either  Calvin  was  perpetu- 
ally contradicting  himself,  or  his  early  and  unbi- 
assed opinions  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  gradually 
yielded  to  that  pernicious  influence  which  irregu- 
lar conduct  seldom  fails  to  exercise,  even  over 
well  constituted  minds. 

You  undertake,  indeed,  to  prove,  that  the  ear- 
liest opinions  of  Calvin  were  on  the  side  of  mi- 
nisterial parity,  and  for  this  purpose  quote  several 
passages  from  his  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion. Some  of  the  passages  militate  against  the 
very  cause  which  you  bring  them  to  support:!  For 
example,  Calvin  tells  us  that  the  Presbyters  in 
every  city  chose  one  out  of  their  own  number  to 
whom  they  specially  gave  the  title  of  Bishop,  and 
he  cites  Jerome  as  testifying  that  this  practice  pre- 
vailed in. Alexandria,  from  the  time  of  Mark  the 
Evangelist;  that  is,  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 
And  what  authority  had  the  Bishop  ?  Let  Calvin 
answer.     "  The    office    which    the    Consul   had 

*  See  Durell's  View  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  p.  162— where 
i3ie  followintr  passage  from  the  letter,  is  introduced.  Episcopatus  ipse 
a  Deo  profectus  est.  Episcopi  munus  Dei  authoritate  constitutum  est 
et  legibus  definitum. 

t  Tlie  rest  are  vague,  and  fairly  admit  of  an  interpretation  consist- 
ent with  the  doctrine,  that  Episcopacy  was  a  primitive  and  apostolic- 
institution  :  indeed,  they  must  be  construed  in  iKrs  way,  to  preserve 
C'eir  author  from  palpable  contradiction, 


192  OPINlOxNb  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.   Vil. 

m  the  Senate  to  propose  business;  to  collect  opi- 
nions; to  preside  in  consulting,  admonishing,  and 
exhci'ting;  to  direct  by  his  authority^  the  whole  pro- 
cess of  business;  and  to  put  in  execution  that 
which  was  decreed  by  the  common  counsel  of  all; 
the  same  office  had  tlie  Bishop  in  the  assembly  of 
Presbyters."*  What  if  Calvin  seems  to  say,  after 
this,  that  the  superiority  of  the  Bishop  to  the 
Presbyter  rested  upon  human  custom  ?  Why,  the 
result  is,  that  he  is  inconsistent  with  himself;  in 
his  eagerness  to  defend  the  system  of  ministerial 
parity,  upon  which  he  had  so  long  acted,  suffer- 
ing his  ingenuity  to  pervert  his  judgment.  I  say, 
the  system  upon  which  he  had  so  long  acted;  for 
you  run  into  an  error  on  this  subject  which  it  will 
ha  proper  to  point  out.  You  begin  your  extracts 
from  Calvin  with  his  Institutions,  which,  you  tell 
us,  were  his  first  theological  work,  and  were  pub- 
lished so  early  as  the  year  1536,  before  he  had  ever 
seen  Geneva;  intending  in  this  way  to  make  it 
out  that  his  earliest  opinions  were  on  the  side  of 
the  divine  institution  of  the  system  of  ministerial 
paritv.  It  has,  indeed,  been  shown,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Institutes  is  often  decidedly  hostile  to 
the  Presbyterial  doctrine ;  but,  after  so  frequently 
charging  your  opponents  with  utter  ignorance  of 
the  works  of  Calvin,  and  of  the  incidents  of  his 
life,  are  you  so  uninformed  as  not  to  know  that  the 
first  edition  of  the  Institutes,  published  in  the  year 
1535,  was  a  mere  sketchy  and  that  it  did  not  ap- 

•  Institutes,  b<3ok  iv  obap.  4. 


r.ET.  Vn.       OPINIONS  OF  THl:  REFORMERS.  193 

pear  in  its  present  enlarged  state  until  the  year 
1558  ?  Beza,  in  speaking  of  the  original  edition, 
calls  it,  "  operis  longe  maximi  rudimentum."* 
The  work,  as  it  appeared  at  first,  consisted  of  but 
twenty-one  chapters ;  and  thus  it  continued  in  all 
the  editions  through  which  it  passed  until  the  year 
1558,  when  it  came  forth  in  its  present  form,  di- 
vided into  eighty  chapters,  and  four  books.  If  you 
will  consult  Bayle's  Dictionary,  you  will  find  these 
facts  distinctly  stated.f  And  yet  you  quote  the 
enlarged  edition  of  the  Institutes  to  show  the 
opinions  of  their  author  in  the  commencement  of 
his  theological  career.  How  do  you  know  that  the 
passages  which  you  quote  from  the  present  edition 
of  the  Institutes  were  in  the  original  sketch, 
published  in  the  year  1535?  You  surely  have  no 
right  to  take  it  for  granted. 

See  how  Calvin  was  understood  by  his  ad- 
mirers ! 

Mons.  Daille,  a  French  Protestant  divine,  speaks 
thus  explicitly :— "  Calvin  himself  honoured  all 
Bishops  that  were  not  subjects  of  the  Pope,  &c. 
such  as  were  the  Prelates  of  England.  We  con- 
fess that  the  foundation  of  their  charge  is  good 
and  lawful,  established  by  the  Apostles  according  to 
the  command  of  Christ J'^X 


*  Beza,  in  vita  Calvini,  p.  o67. 

f  "  The  last  edition,  either  French  or  Latin,  revised  by  the  author, 
is  of  1558.  In  that  edition  the  work  was  divided  into  four  books,  and 
each  book  into  several  chapters,  of  which  there  are  in  all  fourscore. 
The  edition  of  1550  is  divided  only  into  one  and  twenty  chapters.*' 
Bayle's  Dictionai-y,  vol.  iv.  London^  printed  by  James  jBeUe?ihamy  1736. 

f  Bingham's  French  Church's  Apology  for  the  Church  of  Enj^lasd. 

25 


194  OPliNIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VIH 

Monsieur  De  Le  Angle,  another  divine  of  the 
.French  Protestant  Church,  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  the  Bishop  of  London,  writes  thus: — "  Calvin, 
in  his  treatise  of  the  necessity  of  the  Reformation, 
makes  no  difficulty  to  say,  that  if  there  should  be 
anv  so  unreasonable  as  to  refuse  the  communion  of 
a  Church  that  was  pure  in  its  worshij)  and  doctrine, 
and  not  to  submit  himself  with  respect  to  its  go- 
vernment, under  pretence  that  it  had  retained  an 
Hpiscopacy  qualified  as  yours  is;  there  would  be 
!iio  censure  or  rigour  of  discipline  that  ought  not 
1o  be  exercised  upon  them."* 

Jacobus  Lectins,  a  Senator  of  Geneva,  and 
Public  Reader  in  the  University,  in  a  book  dedi- 
cated to  the  Syndics  and  Senate,  uses  the  follow- 
ing language: — "  We  maintain  that  those  are  true 
and  lawful  Bishops  whom  St.  Pant  describes  in 
-his  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus ;  and  we  do 
not  deny  but  that  there  were  such  formerly  in  that 
great  kingdom  of  Great-Britain,  and  that  at  this 
very  day  there  are  such  Bishops  there."  "  Nei- 
ther was  there  any  of  our  divines,  I  think,  who 
ever  denied  it  to  be  a  most  ancient  custom  in  the 
Church,  fro7n  the  very  times  of  the  Apostles;  to  wit, 
that  one  should  have  the  chief  care  of  the  Church, 
sitting,  as  it  were,  at  the  helm  of  the  sacred  ship. 
And  they  did  so  treat  of  the  limitation  of  that 
pre-eminence  according  to  the  word  of  God,  that 
Ihey  have  professed,  by  their  public  writings,  that 
it  was  madlike  to  think  meanly  of  the  order  of 

'  Stillingfleet's  Unreasonableness  of  Separation. 


LET.  VIJ.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REF0UMEI\3.  196 

orthodox  Bishops,  to  whom,  therefore,  our  men, 
and  amongst  them,  Calvin,  Bucer,  Jieza,  Sadeel, 
and  others,  have  deferred  all  manner  of  honour 
and  affection.'"^ 

After  all,  there  is  no  little  difficulty  in  ascertain- 
ing the  precise  opinions  of  Calvin  on  the  subject 
ot  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  and 
ministry.  He  is  not  always  consistent  with  him- 
self. Perplexed  and  embarrassed  between  the 
system  which  he  had  adopted  in  practice,  and 
the  irresistible  evidence  of  ministerial  impaiity, 
presented  both  by  Scripture  and  antiquity,  he 
knew  not  how  to  extricate  himself  from  his  owa 
labyrinth:  He  found  himself  unable,  probably, 
either  to  form  or  to  express  any  perfectkj  definite 
ideas.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  he  rejected, 
unequivocally,  the  doctrine  of  absolute  parity 
among  the  ministers  of  the  word,  and  that  he  de- 
clared his  readiness  to  submit  to  such  an  Episco- 
pacy as  that  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  denounc- 
ing the  heaviest  anathema  against  all  who  should 
refuse  to  follow  his  exam  pie.  t 

Beza,  the  friend  and  successor  of  Calvin,  thus 


*  Durell's  View  of  the  Foreign  Refornxed  Churches,  p.  169,  170. 

I  Dr.  Durell,  after  carefully  examining-  the  writinj^s  of  Calvin,  with 
particular  reference  to  his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  ministry, 
gives  the  following  as  the  result — "  For  all  that  I  have  either  read  of, 
or  in  him,  or  seen  produced  out  of  his  writings,  I  am  of  this  mind, 
that  Episcopacy  was  the  government  that  he  approved  most,  and  that 
he  took  it  to  be,  as  it  is  undoubtedly,  of  apostolical  institution  ;  tliough 
his  opinion  was,  that  the  Church,  according  to  her  exigences,  in  re- 
lation to  places,  times,  and  other  circumstances,  may  dispense  with 
it."  DureWt  Vie~o  of  the  Government  and  Worship  in  the  Forei^-n  lii;- 
formed  Churehes,  p.  161. 


196  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII. 

expresses  himself  in  a  letter  to  Archbishop  Whit- 
gift  : — "  In  my  writings  touching  Church  govern- 
ment, I  ever  impugned  the  Romish  hierarchy,  but 
never  intended  to  touch  or  impugn  the  ecclesias- 
tical polity  of  the  Church  of  England."*  Beza 
further  speaks  of  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church 
of  England  as  a  singular  blessing  of  God,  and 
prays  that  she  may  ever  enjoy  it.f  He  uses,  in 
the  same  treatise,  the  following  strong  language, 
which  is  entitled  to  your  very  particular  attention : 
— "  If  there  are  any  who  reject  the  tvhole  order  of 
Episcopacy^  God  forbid  that  any  man  of  a  sound 
mind  should  assent  to  the  madness  of  such  men." 

Tried  by  the  declarations  of  Calvin  and  Beza, 
you  and  your  friends  would  certainly  be  condemn- 
ed as  inexcusable  schismatics. 

The  celebrated  Martin  Bucer,  one  of  the  most 
learned  and  judicious  of  the  original  Reformers, 
thus  speaks  of  the  authority  of  Bishops : — "  By  the 
perpetual  observation  of  all  Churches,  even  from 
the  Apostles^  times j  we  see,  XhdX  it  seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  Ghost ^  that  among  Presbyters,  to  whom 
the  procuration  of  Churches  was  chiefly  commit- 
ted, there  should  be  one  that  should  have  the 
care  or  charge  of  divers  Churches,  and  the  whole 
ministry  committed  to  him ;  and,  by  reason  of  that 
charge,  he  was  above  the  rest ;  and,  therefore,  the 
name  of  Bishop  was  attributed  peculiarly  to  those 
chief  rulers.  "J 


*  Life  of  Whitgift,  printed  by  Snodbam,  1612 
I  Heza.  Ilesp.  ad  Sarav.  cap.  IP 
4  De  cura.  curat,  p.  ^51. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  KLlOllMKUS.  VJ7 

It  is  not  going  too  far  to  say  that  the  diflirnlty 
which  the  Reforniers  found  in  procuring  Bisliops 
alone  prevented  Episcopacy  from  being  univer- 
sally retained.  The  Romish  Church  was  ex- 
tremely vigilant  upon  this  point.  The  moment 
a  Bishop  showed  any  disposition  to  join  tlie  Re 
formers,  he  was  made  the  subject  of  bitter  per- 
secution. This  is  particularly  apparent  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Protestant  Church  of  France,  to  which 
1  would  now  take  the  liberty,  for  a  few  moments, 
of  soliciting  your  attention. 

Peter  Du  Moulin,  an  eminent  professor  of  this 
Church,  thus  writes: — "  Our  adversaries  unjustly 
accuse  us  to  be  enemies  of  the  Episcopal  Order. 
For  we  must  be  altogether  ignorant  in  history,  if 
we  do  not  know  that  auuquity  speaks  honourably 
of  that  degree.  Eusebius,  in  his  Chronicle,  wit- 
nesseth,  that  a  year  after  our  Lord's  death,  James, 
our  Lord's  brother,  was  established  Bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem ;  and  that  ten  years  after,  Euodius  was 
created  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  that  after  James 
succeeded  Simon  in  the  Bishoprick  of  Jerusalem, 
from  whence  descended  the  succession  of  Bishops 
in  Jerusalem.  St.  Jerome,  in  his  book  of  ecclesi- 
astical writers,  saith,  that  Polycarp,  St.  John's  dis- 
ciple, was  by  that  Apostle  made  Bishop  of  Smyrna. 
In  the  same  book  he  saith,  that  St.  Paul  esta- 
blished Timothy  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and  Titus 
Bishop  of  Crete.  And  Tertullian,  in  the  thirty- 
second  chapter  of  the  book  of  Prescriptions,  cal- 
ieth  those  Churches  Apostolical  Churches,  and 
buds  and  sprigs  of  the  Apostles,  whose  Bishops 


198  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VII. 

were  established  by  the  Apostles,"  fee.  "  If  some- 
times we  speak  against  the  authority  of  Bishops, 
we  condemn  not  Episcopal  Order  in  itself,  but 
s|>eak  only  of  the  corruption  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  has  induced  into  it,-'  &c.* 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  Du  Moulin  here  un- 
dertakes to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  French 
Church  :  thus  speaking,  he  admits  that  there  are 
instances  of  Episcopacy  in  the  apostolical  practice, 
and  that  it  agrees,  moreover,  with  the  practice  of 
all  antiquity.  The  fair  inference  from  the  language 
of  Du  Moulin  is,  that  the  French  Church  would 
readily  have  submitted  to  Bishops,  if  Bishops  had 
been  its  reformers.  Indeed,  he  expressly  says  that, 
"  God  having  permitted  the  work  of  reformation  to 
be  carried  on  only  by  t\ie  inferior  clergy,  they 
thought  it  meet  to  keep  themselves  within  the 
bounds  of  the  order  of  Priesthood ;  thai  if  ever  it 
were  God's  will  that  the  Bishops  themselves  should 
reform  and  embrace  the  true  doctrine,  there  might 
be  no  contestation  with  them  for  jurisdiction  and 
pre-eminence,  but  all  manner  of  readiness,  on  the 
reformed  ministers  part,  to  submit  to  the  Bishops, 
and  to  acknowledge  them  for  their  lawful  superiors 
and  prelates."  "  As  for  me,  I  nothing  doubt  but 
those  things  were  so  ordered  by  them,  according 
to  the  exigency  of  the  times,  because  their  con- 
<lition  did  not  permit  them  to  do  otherwise. "t 

Monsieur  Caches,  one  of  the  ministers  of  Cha- 
renton,  thus  writes  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Brevint: — 

•   Moulin's  Buckler  of  Faitli,  p.  345,  Lond.  Edit.  1631. 
t  Durell's  View  of  tlie  Fore ig-n  Reformed  Cliuixhes,  p.  119, 


LET.  VII.        OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  199 

"  Would  to  God  we  had  no  other  diilerences  with 
the  Bishops  of  France,  but  their  dignity:  How 
cheerfully  should  I  subnnitm}  self  to  them !  although 
you  know  that  their  yoke  is  heavy,  far  heavier 
than  that  of  the  Bisiiops  of  England.  How  comes 
it  to  pass  then  that  those  of  your  Presbyterians 
that  are  great,  understanding,  and  wise  men,  have 
such  an  aversion  against  moderate  Episcopacy? 
And  why  do  they  refuse  to  have  communion  with 
Ignatius,  Poly  carp,  Cyprian,  Chrysostom,  and  all 
that  holy  company  of  the  purest  antiquity?"* 

Monsieur  De  Le  Angle,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Bre- 
vint,  uses  the  following  strong  language: — ''  I 
cannot  tell  what  these  haters  of  the  peace  of 
the  Church  mean,  that  prattle  up  and  down,  and 
talk  as  if  the  French  Churches  were  great  ad- 
versaries of  the  Episcopal  order.  God  forbid, 
Sir,  that  we  should  have  such  a  perverse  and 
rash  opinion.  I  am  sure  that  neither  Monsieur 
Daille,  nor  Monsieur  Amiraut,  nor  Monsieur  Bo- 
chart,  nor  any  of  my  colleagues  of  Rouen  ever 
approved  of  it."  "  An  Episcopacy,  framed  after 
the  model  which  was  exercised  with  so  much  suc- 
cess by  those  Prelates  of  the  Apostolic  Churches^ 
which  Christ  calls  angels,  such  as  Clemens,  Poly- 
earp,  Ireneus,  Cyprian,  Athanasius,  Chrysostora, 
and  Austin,  and  many  others  of  the  like  kind,  who 
have  been  in  the  Church  the  sweet  savour  of 
Christ ;  it  is  a  most  sacred  and  most  ancient  order, 
and  if  the  Apostles  themselves  were  not  the  au- 

*  DiireU'g  View  of  thoForeifrn  Reformed  Churches,  p.  125. 


200  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VH. 

thors  of  it,  certainly  it  was  instituted  by  apostolic 
men,  who  might  say  of  their  ordinances  of  this 
nature  the  same  that  the  Apostle  said  sometimes, 
after  he  had  gravely  resolved  some  questions, 
about  which  he  had  no  express  command  from 
God — "  Ithlnk^  also^  that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God,^''* 

But  we  have  much  more  decisive  evidence  on 
this  point.  Take  the  following  passage  from  a 
letter  of  the  celebrated  Peter  Martyr  to  Beza: — 
'^  The  Church  of  Troyes  is  very  great,  and  in- 
(Teascs  daily :  the  Bishop  thereof  is  now  become 
a  zealous  promoter  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and 
instructs  his  flock  in  the  purity  of  the  Gospel." 
'^  He  sent  for  the  Elders  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
and  desired  them  to  consult  among  themselves 
prudently  and  piously,  whether  they  might  accept 
of  him  as  their  Bishop.  If  they  did,  he  would 
then  go  on,  as  he  had  begun,  to  edify  and  aug- 
ment to  the  utmost  of  his  power  the  Church  com- 
mitted to  his  charge.  But  if  they  thought  him  not 
qualified  for  so  great  a  work,  they  should  deal 
freely  and  plainly  with  him :  for  in  that  case  he 
was  resolved  to  resign  his  Bishoprick,  and  live  as  a 
private  Christian  among  them."  "  He  was  unani- 
mously acknowledged  and  received  by  them  all  as 
a  true  Bishop :  and  his  authority  and  piety  did 
great  service  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  Praised  be 
God,  who  takes  these  methods  to  govern  and  ad- 
vance the  kingdom  of  his  Son."t 

Here  is  a  most  decided  testimony  of  the  readi-. 

*  Durell's  View  of  the  Foreign  lit- formed  Cluirchc^,  p,  14?;  144 
fPet.  Mv:t  Ep.  57,  ad  J^ezam,  p.  J  HP 


y.F.T.  VI r*       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  201 

iiess  oi'  the  French  Protestants  to  adopt  the  Epis- 
copal constitution  of  the  ministry.  But  mark  the 
issue!  The  Papists^  greatly  alarmed,  commenced 
a  severe  attack  upon  the  Bishop  of  Troyes,  and 
finally  succeeded  so  far  as  to  prevail  upon  the 
king  of  France  to  expel  him  from  his  diocess. 
For  this  we  have  the  testimouy  of  the  French  his- 
torian Thuanus.* 

But  further — Several  of  the  Bishops  of  France, 
about  the  same  period,  evinced  a  disposition  fa- 
vourable to  the  Reformation;  in  consequence  of 
which  they  were  accused  of  heresy,  and  sum- 
moned to  appear  before  the  Consistory  of  the  In- 
quisition at  Rome.  Three  of  them  were  deprived, 
and  the  rest  suspended  until  they  should  vindicate 
themselves  from  the  charge  of  heresy.  Unfor- 
tunately, most  of  them  returned  to  the  Church 
of  Rome;  but  Cardinal  Castilion,  Sangelasius, 
and  the  Bishop  of  Troyes,  embraced  the  Protes- 
tant faith ;  continuing  to  act  as  Bishops  until  they 
were  forced  to  withdraw  by  the  civil  power.  The 
historian  Spondanus  gives  us  this  information  ;t 
and  he  compiled  his  history  from  writers  who  were 
contemporary,  or  nearly  so,  with  the  events  which 
they  relate.} 

Of  the  same  character  is  the  testimony  of  Dr 
Du  Moulin,  son  of  the  celebrated  Peter  Du  Mou- 


*  Thuan.  torn.  ii.  lib.  23.  p,  48. 
-1-  An.  1563,  p.  21. 

i  Thuamis,  lib.  35.     Moir.erus  Tortora  Hist.  Frcinc.  lib.  3.     Cabti- 
ius  Vit.  Pii  5.  lib,  2.  cap.  l     Ciitcllus  Ubi\.  Orcltan.    Onimhri'-.s   Vit 

2r, 


^02^  OPINIONS  OF  THE  KEFOUMEllS.       LET.  VII. 

lin,  whom  we  have  already  mentioned.     "  How 
soon  both  pastors  and  people  may  be  brought  to 
submit  to  Bishops,  hath  been  tried  by  the  Bishop 
of  Troyes,  and  that  of  Meaux,  who,  as  soon  as 
tbey  began  to  forsake  the  errors  of  Popery,  were 
acknowledged  by  the  Protestant  Churches  within 
the  verge  of  their  jurisdiction  for  their  Diocesans. 
The  Archbishop  of  Vienna  and  Bishop  of  Orleans 
were   once  about    to   have  done   as  much,  and 
would   have  found   the   like  obedience  from  the 
Protestant   party ;    but   the   great   stream  of  the 
state  proved  too  strong  for  them  to  swim  against." 
"  There  was  a  time  when  some  of  their  prime 
men  feeling  the  inconveniences  that  follow  the 
want  of  ecclesiastical  subordination,  moved  Car- 
dinal Richelieu  to  place  it  among  them  by  his 
authority,   pretending  that  it  would   bring  them 
nearer  to  the  Roman  Church:  But  he  flatly  de- 
nied to  give  way  to  it,  and  told  them,  if  you  had 
that  order,  you  would  look  too  like  a  Church."* 

Accordingly,  the  celebrated  Mons.  Du  Bosc 
expressly  says  that  the  Protestants  of  France  fol- 
lowed the  Presbyterian  system,  "  because  neces- 
sity obliged  them  to  it ;  because  Reformation 
having  been  begun  by  the  people  and  by  inferior 
churchmen,  the  places  of  Bishops  remained  filled 
vvith  men  of  a  contrary  religion,  so  that  they 
were  constrained  to  content  themselves  with  mi- 
nisters and  elders  as  well  as  they  could.  If  Bi- 
shops had  embraced  the  Reformation  at  first,  I 

'  Preface  to  his  FatUer's  book,  culled  the  Novelty  of  Popery,  p.  2,  S 


LET.  VIL        OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  203 

make  no  doubt  but  that  their  order  had  been 
maintained  in  the  ecclesiastical  polity."* 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Protestants  of  France 
were  anxious  to  reform  the  Church  upon  Episco- 
pal principles,  and  that  they  were  prevented  from 
doing  so,  simply  by  the  difficulty  which  they 
found  of  procuring  Bishops.f 

The  Papists  understood  their  business  too  well. 
They  determined  that  the  Protestants  should  not 
possess  the  advantage  of  an  Apostolical  ministry ; 
and,  unhappily,  their  efforts  were  attended  with 
no  small  degree  of  success.  On  the  continent  of 
Europe  they  prevailed  by  measures  of  violence; 
and  in  England,  where  the  Reformation  was  pa- 
tronized by  the  civil  government,  they  put  in  ope- 
ration a  system  of  the  most  shameful  intrigue,  to 
produce  separation  from  the  established  Church. 
A  specimen  of  Papal  fraud  I  have  already  men- 
tioned, in  the  case  of  Bonner  and  Gardiner,  who 
intercepted  a  letter  from  Calvin,  Bullinger,  and 
other  Reformers,  offering  to  receive  Bishops;  to 
which  they  forged  an  ungracious  answer,  and 
thereby  defeated  the  measure.  It  is,  besides,  a 
notorious  fact,  that  the  Papal  court  constantly 
employed  agents,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  to 
travel  through  England,   declaiming  against  the 


*  Diirell's  View  of  the  Government  and  "Worship  of  the  Reformed 
Churches,  p.  122,  123. 

■\  For  many  of  these  f^icts  and  quotations  relative  to  the  Protestants 
of  France,  see  Bing-liam's  French  Ch'irch's  Apolng-y  for  the  Church  of 
Fingland,  book  iv.  cliap.  4. 


204  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMEllb.       LET.    VIU 

established  Church,  and  crying  out  for  further 
reformation. 

The  most  eminent  divines  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  Holland  excused  their  departure  from 
Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  necessity:  Nay, 
they  expressed  a  perfect  readiness  to  submit  to 
the  Episcopal  constitution — they  declared  it  to 
be  their  ardent  wish  to  see  that  constitution  re- 
stored— they  even  went  so  far  as  to  pledge  them- 
selves to  take  all  practicable  measures  to  effect 
its  restoration.  But  the  civil  government  was  op- 
posed to  the  thing;  the  reason  of  which  opposi- 
tion is  thus  stated  by  the  historian  Collier: — "  The 
States,  upon  their  revolt  from  the  king  of  Spain, 
destroyed  seven  Sees,  and  applied  the  revenues 
to  the  public  service.  The  names  of  them  are 
these;  the  Bishoprick  of  Harlaem,  in  Holland; 
of  Middleborough  in  Zealand;  of  Lewarden,  iu 
Friezland  ;  of  Groninguc,  in  Gronningen  ;  of  De- 
venter,  in  Overyssel ;  of  Ruremonde,  in  Guel- 
derland ;  and  the  Archbishoprick  of  Utretcht ;  to 
which  the  Bishops  of  the  other  Sees,  above  men- 
tioned, w^ere  suffragans. 

"  Thus,  'tis  possible,  the  gain  of  sacrilege  pre- 
vailed to  break  the  Apostolical  government.  Those 
at  the  helm  might  be  averse  to  the  continuing 
Episcopacy,  for  fear  some  of  the  old  endowments 
should  be  expected  to  maintain  it."'^ 

*  Collier's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  718. 

Nor  was  it  in  Holland  alone  tliat  difficulties  of  this  kind  wot 
thrown  in  the  way  of  a  primitive  rcfornjation  of  the  Church  ;  tl)o 
same  spirit  was  strong-Iy  at  work  in  England. 

"  Another  sort  cf  men  tlicrc  arc,  which  liave  been  contcj)^  to  nin  or 


f.ET,  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REKOUAn;R.^.  2{Vy 

Hiiis  in  Holland,  as  in  France,  Episcopacy  was 
put  down  by  the  violence  of  the  secular  power. 

The  truth  of  all  this  will  fully  appear  from  the 
accounts  which  have  come  down  to  us,  relative  to 
the  fiimous  Synod  of  Dort. 

Bishop  Carleton,  one  of  the  English  delegates 
to  that  Synod,  gives  the  following  statement : — "  I 
openly  protested  in  the  Synod,  that  it  was  a  strange 
proposition  which  had  been  inserted  in  said  con- 
fession, namely,  that  Christ  institiitecl  an  equality 
among  the  Ministers  of  the  Gospel,  I  publicly  de- 
clared that  it  could  no  where  be  shown  that  Christ 
had  ordained  such  an  equality ;  that  he  had  cho- 
sen twelve  Apostles  and  seventy  disciples,  and  that 
those  Apostles  were  invested  with  an  authority 
and  superintendency  over  all  others,  and  that  the 


with  the  Reformers  for  a  time,  and  to  make  them  poor  Instruments  of 
their  own  designs.  These  are  a  sort  of  godless  politics,  who,  per- 
ceiving the  plot  of  discipline  to  consist  of  these  two  parts,  the  over- 
throw of  Episcopal,  and  the  erection  of  Presbyterial  authority ;  and 
that  this  latter  can  take  no  place  till  the  former  be  removed,  are  con- 
tent to  join  with  them  in  the  destructive  part  of  discipline,  bearing- 
them  in  hand,  that  in  the  oUier  also,  they  shall  find  them  as  ready. 
But  when  time  shall  come,  it  m.ay  be,  they  would  be  as  loth  to  be 
yoked  with  that  kind  of  regiment,  as  now  they  are  willing  to  be  re- 
leased from  this.  These  men's  ends  in  all  their  actions,  is  distraction ; 
their  pretence  and  colour,  reformation.  Those  things,  which,  under 
this  colour,  they  have  effected  to  their  own  good,  arc,  I.  By  main- 
taining a  contrary  faction,  they  have  kept  the  clergy  always  in  awe ; 
and  thereby  made  tljcm  more  pliable  and  willing  to  buy  their  peace- 
2.  By  maintaining  an  opinion  of  equality  among  ministers,  they  have 
made  way  to  their  own  purposes  for  devouring  Cathedral  Churclies 
and  Bishops'  livinc^s."  Geortre  Crmimer's  Letter  to  Mr.  Richard 
Hofjk'cr,  prefixed  to  the  firs-'  -•'jJume  ofi the  "  Ecclesiastical  VoUlyC^  p.  107 
Pxfi)^^d  ^diticn,  \793. 


'tJ06  OPINIONS  OP  THG  RKPORMERS.       LET.  Vl€, 

Church  had  constantly  and  uninterruptedly  main- 
tained the  same  subordination.  I  appealed  in  this 
adair  to  all  the  ancients,  and  to  all  men  of  learning 
of  the  present  age;  yea,  I  earnestly  challenged 
any  man  in  the  Synod  to  prove  tne  contrary.  The 
Lord  Bishop  of  Salisbury  is  my  witness,  and  all 
the  doctors  that  were  with  me,  for  I  was  the 
mouth  of  them  all ;  and  there  was  not  one  man  in 
the  assembly  that  pretended  to  contradict  me : 
from  whence  we  justly  concluded  that  they  were 
all  of  our  opinion." 

Bishop  Carleton  adds,  that  in  a  conference  with 
some  of  the  most  learned  divines  of  the  Synod, 
he  told  them  "  the  cause  of  all  their  troubles  was 
the  want  of  Bishops:"  to  which,  "  their  answer 
was,  that  they  had  a  great  honour  for  the  good 
order  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  heartily  wished  they  could  establish  them- 
selves upon  this  model :  but  they  had  no  prospect 
of  such  a  happiness;  and  since  the  civil  govern- 
ment  had  made  their  desires  impracticable^  they 
hoped  God  would  be  merciful  to  them."* 

In  perfect  correspondence  with  this  is  the  ac- 
count given  by  Bishop  Hall,  another  of  the  Eng- 
lish delegates  to  the  Synod.  "  When  the  Bishop 
of  LandafTe  had,  in  a  speech  of  his,  touched 
upon  Episcopal  government,  and  showed  that  the 
want  thereof  gave  opportunities  to  those  divisions 
which  were  then  on  foot  in  the  Netherlands,  Boger- 


•  Trandt's  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  iii.  p.  288L     Collier's 
Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  717,  718. 


LET.  VII.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  207 

mannus,  the  president  of  that  assembly,  stood  up, 
and,  in  a  good  allowance  of  what  had  been  spoken, 
said,  Doniine,  nos  non  sumus  adeo  feiices.  Alas, 
my  Lord,  we  are  not  so  happy.  Neither  did  he 
speak  this  in  a  fashionable  compliment,  (neither 
the  person,  nor  the  place,  nor  the  hearers  were  fit 
for  that)  but  in  a  sad  gravity,  and  conscionable  pro- 
fession of  a  known  truth ;  neither  would  he,  being 
the  mouth  of  that  select  assembly,  have  thought 
it  safe  to  p;ss  those  words  before  the  deputies  of 
the  States,  and  so  many  venerable  divines  of  fo- 
reign parts  (besides  their  own)  if  he  had  not  sup- 
posed this  so  clear  a  truth  as  that  Synod  would 
neither  disrelish  nor  contradict.  What,  do  I  sin- 
gle out  a  few  ?  All  the  world  of  men,  judicious, 
and  not  prejudiced  with  their  own  interests,  both 
do,  and  must  say  thus,  and  confess  with  the 
learned  Casaubon,  Fregevill,  and  Saravia,  that 
no  Church  in  the  world  comes  so  near  to  the 
Apostolic  form  as  the  Church  of  England."* 

The  British  delegates  to  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
then,  expressly  asserted,  in  the  Synod,  the  divine 
institution  of  Episcopacy  ;  appealing  to  the  an- 
cients,  and  to  all  men  of  learning,  and  challeng- 
ing the  members  of  the  Synod  to  disprove 
what  they  had  said.  And  what  was  the  result? 
"  Not  one  man  in  the  assembly,"  says  Bishop 
Carleton,  "  pretended  to  contradict  me:  from 
whence,  we  justly  concluded,  that  they  were  all 
of  our  opinion."     Here  we  have  the  positive  de- 

*  Bishop  Hall's  Divine  Ricrht  of  Episcopacy,  part  i.  sect.  4 


208  OPINIONS  OF  THE  KEFOUMERtS.       LET.  VIJi 

ciaratioii  of  Bishop  Carletoii,  that  the  members 
of  the  Synod  of  Dort  were  regarded  by  the  Eng- 
lish delegates  as  universally  admitting  the  divine 
institution  of  Episcopacy.  What,  now.  Sir,  shall 
we  think  of  the  very  contemptuous  terms  in  which 
you  have  thought  proper  to  speak  of  the  ignorance 
displayed  by  me  relative  to  the  proceedings  of 
the  Synod  in  question?^'     In  the  strongest  of  my 


*  "  Mr.  How  has  allowed  himself  to  speak  on  this  subject  in  a  way 
for  which  I  really  feel  at  a  loss  to  form  an  adequate  apolog-y."*  Mr. 
How  has  simply  spoken  the  language  of  the  English  delegates  to  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  Bishops  Carleton,  Hall,  and  Davenasit,  are  the  persons 
to  whom  your  lofty  charges  of  ignorance  and  disingeniiousness  must 
be  applied.  "  It  never  occurred  to  me,  before  I  saw  Mr  How's  pam- 
phlet, that  it  was  possible  for  any  well  informed  man,  who  valued  hi:; 
reputation,  to  give  such  a  statement  as  that  gentlem.'in  has  done,  of 
the  sentiments  of  the  principal  divines  of  the  Reformed  C!mrches."f 
It  would  be  easy  to  mention  a  number  of  veiy  learned  and  excellent 
men  who  have  spoken  of  the  Reformers  in  stronger  terms  tlian  those 
which  you  so  bitterly  complain  of  in  my  Letters.  But  let  me  refer  you, 
for  a  moment,  to  the  language  of  the  well  known,  and  universally  re- 
spected and  admired.  Bishop  Hall. 

"  But  first,  ere  we  enter  the  lists,  let  me  advise  you  not  to  deceive 
\ourselves  vainly  with  the  hope  of  hiding  your  heads  und^er  the  skirt 
of  tlie  authority  of  those  Divines  and  Churches  abroad,  which  retain 
that  form  of  government  whereto  you  have  submitted ;  for  know, 
•heir  case  and  yours  is  far  enough  diifi-rent :  they  plead  to  be,  by  a 
hhtd  of  necessity f  cast  upon  that  condition  which  you  have  ioilli7itfIy 
chospn.  They  were  npt,  they  could  not  be,  what  you  were,  and  might 
btill  have  been.  Did  any  of  them  forsake  and  abjure  that  function  of 
lipiscopacy  which  he  might  freely  have  enjoyed,  with  the  full  liberty 
of  professing  the  reformed  religion  ?  Did  ever  any  wise  man  or  Chris- 
tian Church  condemn  that  calling  for  itself?  Yea,  if  the  last  Bishop 
of  Geneva  had  become  a  Protestant,  and  conseiUed  in  matter  of  doc- 
trine to  Calvin,  Farret,  Viret,  have  you,  or  any  man  living,  just  cause 
It)  tliink  tliat  the  city  would  not  gladly  have  retained  his  government 

'  C^ntinllation  of  I.tVfrs.  n   ^64.  "   lL>iJ-  p.  380. 


LET.  VI [.       OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  209 

observations   I  am   completely  supported  by  the 
unequivocal  testimony  oi'  the  English  delegates* 

otilj,  and  thouglit  themselves  happy  under  such  a  protection  ?  Would 
they  luive  cjecteil  liim  :is  an  enemy  whom  they  might  have  enjoyed  as 
a  patron  ?  Would  they  have  stood  upon  his  Episcopacy,  while  tliey  had 
his  conrMircncc  in  tlie  truth  of  relii^non  ?  jYo  mem  that  hath  either  brain 
or  forehead  ~.vill  affirm  it ;  since  the  luorld  knorjs  the  quarrel  -was  not  at 
his  dignitu,  but  at  his  opposition  to  the  intended  reformation.  Hear  what 
Calvin  himself  suith  for  himself  and  his  co-partners."*  Bishop  Hall 
proceeds  to  quote  various  passages  from  the  writings  of  Calvin,  which 
have  heen  already  given,  and  then  adds—"  Uo  you  hear  your  doom 
from  your  own  oracle  ?  Make  account,  therefore,  of  the  merit  and 
danger  of  Calvin's  just  anathema." 

"  And  that  the  French  Reformers  may  not  herein  be  thought  to  go 
alone,  take  notice,  I  beseech  you,  what  tl»e  German  divines  of  the 
Augsburg  confession  have  freely  professed  to  this  purpose."  The 
liishopgoes  on  to  present  a  number  of  passages  relative  to  the  German 
Reformers,  particularly  Melancthon  and  Luther,  and  then  says—"  See 
now,  I  beseech  you,  how  willing  these  first  Reformers  were  to  main- 
tain and  establish  Episcopal  government;  how  desirous  to  restore  it, 
how  troubled  that  they  might  not  continue  it :  might  they  have  enjoyed 
the  Gospel,  they  would  have  enjoyed  Episcopacy.  In  whose  steps 
then  do  you  tread  while  you  defy  it  ?  Certainly  if  the  Genevan  and 
German  prelacy  w^ould  have  but  tolerated  a  reformation  of  the  Papal 
corruptions,  there  had  never  been  either  a  parity  of  ministers,  or  a  lay 
Presbyter  in  the  -world  to  this  </ay."+ 

I  have  never  used  language  so  pointed  and  strong  as  this;  and  yet 
you  talk  of  my  "  astonishing  ignorance,  misconceptions,  and  misre- 
presentations." For  all  I  have  said,  I  can  appeal  to  the  authority  of  Bi- 
shop Hall,  whom  you  style  an  "  eminently  learned  and  pious  divine."^ 
Bishop  Hall,  too,  it  will  be  recollected,  lived  shortly  after  the  Refor- 
mation, and  had  full  opportunity  of  knowing  the  opinions  and  acts  of 
its  original  conductors.  He  tells  us  that  the  foreign  Reformers,  with 
one  voice,  pleaded  the  necessity  of  their  situation  in  excuse  for  their 
departure  from  Episcopacy;  that  they  expressed  the  most  anxious 
desire  to  retain  it;  thr.t  they  pronounced  the  heaviest  anathema  upon 
all  who  should  voluntarily  depart  from  it;  that  all  this  is  so  notorious 
that  "  no  man  who  hath  either  brain  or  forehead"  will  call  it  in  ques- 
tion;    in  fine,   that  if  the  original  Genevan  and  German  Reformer-^ 

*  Hall's  Divine  Right  of  Kpisco])acr,  part  i.  sclI.  Q.        f  Ibid.  T>i.it  \.  sect.  C,  ." 

i    Miibr's  Letters,  p.  ^^vO. 

07 


ilO  OPliNlONS  OF  THE  KEFORMEKS.       LET.  VH. 

But  why  did  not  the  Reformed  Church  of  Hol- 
land adopt  Episcopacy,  and  place  it  at  the  foun- 
dation of  her  ecclesiastical  system?  The  divines 
of  tlie  Synod  of  Dort  shall  answer  the  question. 
"  We  heartily  wish  we  could  establish  ourselves 
upon  this  model :  but  we  have  no  prospect  of 
such  a  happiness;  and  since  the  civil  govern- 
ment has  made  our  desires  impracticable,  we 
hope  God  will  be  merciful  to  us."  Here,  then, 
was  the  difficulty.  The  civil  power  would  not 
suffer  the  Episcopal  constitution  to  be  restored. 
And  the  historian  Collier  gives  us  the  reason. 
"  The  States,  upon  their  revolt  from  the  King  of 
Spain,  destroyed  seven  Sees,  and  applied  the 
revenues  to  the  public  service."  "  Those  at  the 
helm  might  be  averse  to  the  continuing  Episco- 
pacy, for  fear  some  part  of  the  old  endowments 
should  be  expected  to  maintain  it."* 

But  does  not  this  cast  great  discrdit  upon  the 
venerable  Synod  of  Dort  ?  I  can  only  say,  I  am 
not  bound  to  vindicate  the  character  of  the  Sy- 
nod— I  state  the  facts,  and  the  testimony — The 
reader  will  judge  for  himself.  In  truth,  Sir,  the 
Synod  of  Dort  was  a  political  engine ;  being  so 
contrived  as  to  act  always  in  subserviency  to  the 
views  of  the  State.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the 
excellent  history  of  Brandt,t  without  being  forci- 

liad  been  Bishops,  Uie  system  of  ministerial  parity  would  never  have 
had  existence.  Will  you  talk  to  us,  then,  of  the  "  astonishing  igno- 
rancc,  misconceptions,  and  misrepresentations"  of  Bishop  Hull  ? 

•  Ecclesiastical  liistory,  vol.  ii.  p.  718. 

t  Uistory  of  the  Ueformation  in  and  about  the  Lovr  Countries,  in  4 
vols,  folio — a  work  celebrated  for  its  impartiality 


LET.  VII.        OPINIONS  OF  THK  REFORMKRS*  211 

bly  Struck  with  this  fact.  '^  The  Synod,"  said 
Martiniiis,  one  of  its  most  dislin<2;uished  members, 
"  is  nothing  more  than  a  political  farce  or  comedy, 
in  which  statesmen  act  the  chief  parts."^'  To 
the  same  effect  is  the  language  of  the  celebrated 
Lewis  Du  Moulin — "  The  civil  magistrate  will 
suffer  none  to  appear  at  the  council  but  such  as 
approve  of  their  doctrine."  "  If  the  States  Gene- 
ral had  been  on  the  side  of  the  Arminians,  they 
might,  without  doubt,  have  easily  procured  a 
Synod  that  would  have  been  entirely  Arminian."t 
And  the  very  distinguished  Marcus  Antonius  de 
Dominis,  whom  Brandt  calls  a  miracle  of  learning, 
expressly  says — "  Th«  Synod  of  Dort  was  governed 
by  human  views  and  designs,  and  its  chief  care 
was,  that  the  party  of  Barnevelt  should  not  be 
supported  by  the  remonstrants,  nor  prevail  over 
the  opposite  faction.  Away  with  such  Synods, 
and  such  synodical  decrees."! 

Thus  we  see  how  Episcopacy  came  to  be  laid 
aside  in  Holland.  The  civil  power  was  opposed 
to  it,  and  the  members  of  the  different  Synods 
yielded  to  the  necessity  of  their  situation: — "  Since 
the  civil  government  has  made  our  desires  im- 
practicable, we  hope  that  God  will  be  merciful  to 

U9."^ 

*  3  Brandt,  p.  283.  f  ^^''^^^-  P-  ^03. 

i  Ibid.  p.  309.  It  would  'be  easy  to  multiply  testimonies  on  this 
subject ;  but  the  reader,  who  wishes  for  full  information,  is  referred  to 
the  third  volume  of  Brandt's  History,  already  mentioned. 

§  Before  taking  leave  of  the  Churcli  of  Holland,  permit  me  to  in- 
troduce to  you  the  testimony  of  its  most  ilhistrious  ornament — thf 
immortal  Hug-o  Grotins.     "  Kpisronary  had  il--^  beginning'  in  the  r.pos- 


212  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  Vll. 

The  people  of  Geneva  would  most  willingly 
have  embraced  Episcopacy,  if  they  could  have 
procured  it  without  submitting  to  papal  authority. 
Of  this  the  following  fact  will  furnish  abundant 
proof.  The  Duke  of  Savoy,  while  besieging  the 
city  of  Geneva,  sent  an  ambassador,  with  pro- 
mises of  favour  and  protection  to  the  inhabitants, 
upon  the  condition  of  their  forsaking  the  reformed 
religion,  restoring  the  images,  turning  out  the 
ministers,  and  receiving  again  their  Bishop.  What 
was  the  reply  ?  That  they  would  willingly  receive 
their  Bishop  if  he  would  remember  his  name  and 
place,  and  do  the  work  of  a  Bishop,  according  to 
the  word  of  God;  as  for  the  rest,  they  were  to 
obey  God  rather  than  men,  and  would  never,  as 
long  as  they  remembered  that  they  were  free  and 
consecrated  to  God  alone,  set  up  any  thing  tend- 
ing to  superstition.^  Accordingly,  we  have  seen 
Biahop  Hall  expressly  declaring,  that  the  Gene- 
vans wM3uld  most  readily  have  submitted  to  their 
Bishop,  if  he  would  have  consented  to  a  reforma- 
tion ;  that  their  opposition  was  not  to  his  office, 
but  to  the  corrupt  doctrine  which  he  espoused: 


tolical  times.  This  is  testified  by  the  catalogues  of  Bishops  left  us 
by  Ireneus,  Eusebius,  Socrates,  Theodoret,  and  others,  who  all  begin 
from  the  apostolical  age.  But  to  depart  from  the  faith  of  such  wri- 
ters, and  so  agreeable  to  one  another  in  their  assertions,  in  an  histori- 
cal matter,  is  the  pirt  only  of  an  irreverent  and  obstinate  mind.  It 
is  as  much  as  if  you  should  deny  that  to  be  true,  which  all  the  Ro- 
man histories  deliver,  that  the  consul  ir  authority  began  upon  the 
driving  out  of  the  Tarvquins."  Tie  Lnperio  summarum  J'otestatum  : 
apud  Brett. 

•  Durell's  View,  &c.  p.  160. 


LTF/r.  VII.       OlMNIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  213 

all  which,  Bishop  Ifall  adds,  is  so  notorious,  that 
no  man,  who  has  either  brain  or  forehead,  will 
deny  it. 

If,  instead  of  stigmatizing  Dr.  Dmell  as  igno- 
rant and  disingenous,  you  had  carefully  read  his 
valuable  work,  you  would  have  found  that  the 
Bishop  of  Geneva  was  not  expelled  by  the  Pro- 
testants, but  by  the  Papists  themselves,  before 
the  Reformation  had  been  established  in  the  city. 
It  was  a  political,  not  a  religions  struggle,  that 
obliged  him  to  fly;  the  whole  town  and  senate 
continuing  addicted  to  popery  for  two  years  after 
his  departure.  So  much  was  this  the  case,  that 
the  Senate,  during  the  absence  of  the  Bishop, 
passed  a  decree  for  the  preservation  of  the  old  re- 
ligion,  in  which  all  profession  and  countenance  of 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  were  strictly  prohibited. 
When  the  Bishop  withdrew  for  the  last  time, 
many  professors  of  the  reformed  religion  were 
driven  out  of  the  city  ;  and  the  translated  Bibles, 
whether  in  French  or  Dutch,  were  ordered  to  be 
committed  to  the  flames.* 

*  See  Dr.  Durell's  View  of  llie  Government  and  Public  Worship  ol 
God  in  the  Reformed  Churches  beyond  tlie  Seas,  p.  151  to  161. 

It  is  a  common  error  to  suppose  that  the  Reformers  of  Geneva  ex- 
cited a  popular  tumult,  by  which  the  Bishop  was  expelled  both  from 
liis  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power;  whereas  the  fact  is,  as  Dr.  Durell 
completely  proves,  that  the  expulsion  in  question  was  the  work  of 
the  Papists  ;  that  the  Reformation  connnenced  durint:^  the  absence 
of  the  Bishop;  and  that  the  circumstance  of  the  Reformers  proceeding- 
without  Episcopacy  was  thus  the  result  of  necessity,  not  of  choice. 
What  more  decisive  evidence  of  this  could  be  g-iven  tlian  the  express 
declaration  of  their  readiness  to  receive  their  Bishop,  upon  the  sin- 
.^le  condition  of  his  embracing-  the  reformed  doctrine !  In  truth, 
Episcopacy  was  never  deliberately  and  voluntarily  laid  aside  bv  w\  bodA 


?14  OPINIONS  6P  THE  REFORMERSc       LET.  VII, 

In  short — the  whole  Christian  world  was  Epis- 
copal until  the  time  of  the  Refornicition.  "  VV^e 
require  you,"  says  the  profoundly  learned  Hooker, 
"  to  find  out  but  one  Church,  upon  the  face  of 
the  whole  earth,  that  hath  been  ordered  by  your 
discipline,  or  hath  not  been  ordered  by  ours,  that 
is  to  say,  by  Episcopal  regiment,  since  the  time 
that  the  blessed  Apostles  were  here  conversant.'* 
How  conclusive  is  this  ?  And  shall  we  be  told, 
in  the  face  of  such  a  fact,  that  ministerial  parity 
is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  the  primitive 
Church?  What!  a  doctrine  never  acted  upon 
until  the  sixteenth  century,  and  acted  upon  then 
on  the  express  ground  of  necessity?*  Yes,  I  re- 
peat it,  the  Reformers,  wherever  a  free  choice 
existed,  adopted  the  Episcopal  constitution  of  the 
ministry;  and  when  they  departed  from  this  con- 
stitution, they  invariably  pleaded  the  necessity  of 

of  men  except  the  English  and  Scotch  Presbyterians.  Even  the  first 
Puritans,  indeed,  entertained  .o  scruples  w  ith  respect  to  the  lawfidness 
of  Episcopal  government  ;-\  it  was  not  until  after  some  years  of  furious 
contention  that  it  came  to  be  denounced  as  a  wicked  and  anti-Chris- 
tian hierarchy. 

*  The  only  ex  imples  of  Christian  Societies,  Presbyterially  consti- 
tuted,  which  you  attempt  to  produce,  previously  to  the  16th  century, 
are  those  of  the  Waldenses,  and  of  the  Bohemian  brethren.  But  here 
Mosheira  is  directly  against  you.t  In  fact,  the  evidence  of  the  Epis- 
copal constitution  of  the  Churches  of  the  Waldenses,  and  of  the  Bo- 
'lemian  brethren  is  clear  and  decisive  ;  at  all  events,  the  case  is  a  dis- 
puted one.  But  Dr.  Bov/den  has  fully  examined  this  subject,  and  with 
his  usual  ability :  I  shall,  therefore,  barely  refer  the  reader  to  what 
he  has  said.  See  Bosudeii's  Letters  to  Miller ^  vol.  it.  p.  77 — 81.  ?•«/.  Hi 
p.  331—347 

I  Robertson's  America,  vol.  iv.  p.  259,  260. 

1  MosSdm's  Ecclesiastical  History,  v«^  iii  p   12?. 


LET.  VH.       OPINIONS  OF  TME  ItEPORMERS.  215 

the  case  as  their  excuse.  In  England,  where  the 
Reformation  was  conducted  with  marked  deHbe*- 
ration,  Episcopacy  was  retained  as  an  apostolic 
institution,  and  placed  at  the  very  foundation  of 
the  established  Church:  three  distinct  offices  of 
ordination  were  composed  for  the  distinct  orders 
of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons ;  and  these  dis- 
tinct orders  were  expressly  declared  to  be  of  di- 
vine authority.  In  Denmark  and  Sweden  the 
civil  government  was  decidedly  favourable  to  the 
Reformation:  accordingly,  in  those  countries  the 
Church  was  reformed  upon  Episcopal  principles. 
The  Lutheran  Churches  of  Germany,  not  able, 
as  they  supposed  and  declared,  to  procure  the 
Episcopal  constitution  of  the  ministry,  retained, 
nevertheless,  the  forms  of  Episcopal  government; 
the  Superintendents  of  those  Churches  exercising 
all  the  powers  of  Bishops,  and  wanting  nothing 
to  make  them  real  Bishops  but  a  regular  consecra- 
tion. Luther  and  Melancthon  excused  their  de- 
parture from  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  neces- 
sity alone;  they  repeatedly  expressed  the  most 
earnest  wish  to  have  Bishops  in  their  Churches — 
'^  I  would  to  God,"  says  Melancthon,  "  it  lay  in 
me  to  restore  the  government  of  Bishops."*  "  li 
it  were  lawful  for  us  to  lay  aside  Bishops,  yet 
surely  it  were  not  expedient.  Luther  was  ever  oi 
this  opinion. "t  Calvin,  in  the  early  part  of  his 
aareer,  declared  his  perfect  readiness  to  submit 

*  Apol.  Aug".  Con.  p.  305. 

I  Melanct.  Camerarius,  Hist.  Con.  Aug-ust.  p.  389. 

The  Church  of  Scotland  was  originally  reformed  upon  a  principle 


216  OPINIONS  OF  thj:  UEFORMERS.       Lhl.   VIU 

to  an  Episcopacy  like  that  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  pronounced  all  who  would  refuse  to 
submit  to  it  as  deserving  of  being  anathematized. 
Nay,  he  wrote  to  Edward  VI.  solemnly  offering 
to  receive  Bishops;  and  in  his  comment  on  Titus 
i.  5,  published  so  late  as  the  year  1.349,  he 
expressly  disclaimed  the  doctrine  of  ministerial 
paritij  as  contrary  to  Scripture.  The  Protestant 
Church  of  France,  we  have  seen,  was  perfectly 
ready  to  reform  under  the  authority  of  Bishops. 
When  the  Bishop  of  Troyes  embraced  the  true 
faith,  the  Protestants  of  the  district  immediately 
received  him  as  their  Diocesan,  and  continued  to 
obey  him  as  such  until  he  was  expelled  by  the 
civil  government.  Cardinal  Castilion,  and  San- 
gelasius  acted  also  in  the  same  way,  and  endured 
the  same  persecution.  It  was  owing  to  Papal 
fraud  and  violence  that  the  Church  of  France 
was  not  reforn^ed  upon  primitive  principles.  AVe 
have  seen,  also,  that  the  most  influential  divines 
of  the  Church  of  Holland  pleaded  the  difficulty 
of  their  situation  in  excuse  for  their  depi-rture 
from  Episcopacy.  When  Bishop  Carleton  main- 
tained the  divine  right  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy 
before  the  Synod  of  Dort,  Bogerman,  the  cele- 
brated President  of  that  Synod,  emphatically  re- 


oF  imparity.  Superintendents  were  established  witli  Episcopal  power, 
and  wanting  nothing  but  consecration  to  make  thenr\  Bishops.  Thus 
matters  continued  from  1560  to  1580,  when,  partly  by  fraud  and  partly 
by  violence,  Presbyterianism  was  introduced.  This  whole  subject  is 
fully  examined  by  Dr.  Bowden,  in  the  third  Tolumc  of  his  I.-citers,  to 
'.vhiqli  the  reader  is  referred — p.  .'^52 — 3^4. 


LEX.  VII.       OP1NION3  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  211 

plied — '^  Domine,  nos  non  sum  us  adeo  felices''-— 
"  My  Lord,  we  are  not  so  happy."  Even  in  the 
reformation  at  Geneva,  Episcopacy  was  not  ranked 
among  the  corruptions  of  Popery ;  the  peofile  ex- 
pressly engaged  in  their  negociations  with  the 
Duke  of  Savoy  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  their 
Bishop  if  he  would  impose  upon  them  no  super- 
stitious observances. 

The  truth,  briefly,  would  seem  to  be,  that  the 
Reformers  were  universally  disposed,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  adopt  the  Episcopal  constitution  of 
the  Priesthood,  and  were  prevented  from  doing 
so  by  the  diificulty  of  procuring  Bishops;  a  diffi- 
culty which  was  in  a  great  measure  created  by 
the  artful  policy  of  the  Papal  court.  Supposing 
themselves  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  giving 
up  the  cause  of  Reformation,  or  of  proceeding 
independently  of  the  Episcopal  power,  they  pre- 
ferred the  latter;  declaring,  at  the  same  time,  their 
readiness  to  receive  Bishops,  acknowledging  their 
authority  to  be  primitive  and  apostolic,*  and  ex- 

*  W^at  a  striking  confessirui  is  that  of  the  celebrated  David  Blonde^ 
who  was  pavticukrly  employed  by  tlie  Assembly  of  Divines  to  plead 
the  Presbyterian  cause!  He  concluded  his  Apologia  pro  Hieronymi 
sententia  thus : — "  By  all  that  we  have  said  to  assert  the  rights  of  t'fie 
Presbytery,  we  do  not  intend  to  invalidate  the  qncieni  and  apostolical 
constitution  of  Episcopal  pre-eminence.  Hut  we  believe  that  whereso- 
ever it  is  est.tblished  conformable  to  the  ancient  Cajnons,  it  must  be 
carefully  preserve<l ;  and  wheresoever  by  some  heat  of  contention  or 
ot.herwise,  ifhath  been  put  down  or  violated,  it  ought  to  be  reverently 
restored."  *  Kut  that  book  having  been  written  at  the  earnest  request 
©f  the  Assembly  of  JJirine^  at  Westminster.,  and  of  the  Scots  especially, 
who  had  their  agents  at  Paris  to  strengthen  their  party,  by  misinform- 
ing the  Protestants  of  France,  and  wirming  tliem  to  their  side.  When 
'.h€Ke  agents  saw  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Blondel'^   manuscript,  thc^ 

28 


^18  OPINIONS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.       LET.  VI!, 

ciising  the  departure  from  such  authority  on  the 
ground  of  necessity  alone.  This,  probably,  was 
the  first  stage  of  the  business.  But,  having  acted 
upon  the  system  of  Presbyterial  ordination,  the 
natural  principles  of  the  human  mind  began  to 
operate  in  the  Reformers;  disposing  them  to  view 
with  a  favourable  eye  all  such  arguments  as  might 
give  countenance  to  the  course  which  they  had 
taken.  At  length  they  were  inclined  to  consider 
Episcopacy  as  a  venerable  and  ancient  institution, 
rery  conducive  to  order  and  discipline,  but  as 
resting  on  no  other  foundation  than  that  of  human 
appointment.  This  was  the  second  stage  of  the 
progress.  And  here  some  of  the  Reformers  con- 
tinued ;  whilst  others  finally  proceeded  so  far  as 
to  declare  ministerial  parity  to  be  the  scriptural 
and  primitive  institution. 

Such  is  the  natural  effect  of  irregular  example. 
Let  us  beware  how  we  innovate  upon  divine  in- 
stitutions! It  will  seldom,  if  ever,  fail  to  lead  us 
into  the  depths  of  error  and  of  folly.  If  Luther, 
Melancthon,  and  Calvin  had  been  Bishops  when 
they  entered  upon  their  glorious  career,  the  Pro- 
testant Churches  would  have  been  preserved  from 
that  lamentable  division  which  has  mingled  the 
inestimable  blessings  of  the  Reformation  with  so 
much  of  strife  and  of  bitterness. 

expostulated  witli  him  very  loud,  for  roaring  all  the  good  he  had  done 
in  Ins  book,  and  never  left  importuning  him,  till  they  had  pre- 
vailed upon  him  to  strike  out  that  conclusion.'  This  piece  of  intelli- 
gence was  given  to  Dr.  du  Moulin  by  Archbishop  Usher,  Anno  1651. 
(Chandler's  Jippeal  D^ended,  /».  241. 


(    219    ) 


LETTER  VIll.  /^COL.COLL. 


Sir, 


A  Proceed  to  notice  that  part  of  your  work  which 
treats  on  the  subject  of  Calvinism. 

From  the  manner  in  which  you  speak,  your 
readers  will  draw  the  conclusion  that,  in  what  I 
have  said  on  this  point,  I  have  transgressed  every 
rule  of  decorum.  I  am  not  afraid  of  being  con- 
demned by  any  of  your  candid  parishoners  who 
will  take  the  trouble  of  reading  all  those  parts  of 
my  Letters  in  which  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism 
are  mentioned.  It  is  true,  I  have  spoken  freely  and 
strongly  of  what  I  conceive  to  be  a  most  erroneous 
and  pernicious  scheme  of  doctrine;  but  I  have 
indulged  in  no  personal  reflections.  Far  otherwise ! 
Let  me  refer  you  to  the  following  passage  from  the 
thirtieth  page  of  my  Letters — "  While  I  speak  thus 
strongly  of  the  pecuhar  tenets  of  Calvinism,  I  can 
say,  with  perfect  truth,  that  for  many,  who  ar- 
dently embrace  them,  I  entertain  the  sincerest 
respect  and  veneration."  Now,  while  we  thus 
liberally  give  credit  to  the  supporters  of  a  doctrine, 
if  we  may  not  strongly  condemn,  and  even  repro- 
bate, the  doctrine  itself,  there  must  be  an  end  of 
all  manly  discussion.  You,  certainly,  will  admit 
that  the  Papal  Church  has  been  adorned  by  men 
of  eminent  learning  and  piety.     The  modern  his- 


220  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

tory  of  Christianity  can  produce  few  names  more 
truly  venerable  than  those  of  Massilon,  Fenelon, 
and  Pascal.  But,  surely,  you  feel  yourself  at  li- 
berty to  speak  of  the  Romish  doctrines  in  terms 
of  deep  abhorrence.  Well,  I  sincerely  think  that 
the  peculiarities  of  the  Calvinistic  scheme  are  not 
less  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and 
not  less  marked  with  absurdity  and  horror,  than 
the  grossest  errors  or  the  foulest  corruptions  of 
the  Papacy ;  and,  while  I  make  no  attack  upon 
the  personal  characters  of  Calvinists,  much  more 
when  1  speak  of  them  with  the  utmost  respect,  in 
thus  strongly  condemning  their  opinions,  I  trans- 
gress not,  in  the  smallest  degree,  the  rules  of 
lawful  rontroi^orsy  Tlie  principle  which  will 
justify  you  in  marking  the  Romish  system  of 
doctrine  as  replete  with  nonsense,  idolatry,  and 
blasphemy,  will  more  than  bear  me  out  in  the 
strongest  epithets  which  I  have  permitted  myself 
to  apply  to  the  scheme  of  your  great  ecclesiasti- 
cal master.* 

Besides,  is  it  not  strange  that  you  should  com- 
plain of  the  liberty  which  I  give  myself  in  refer- 
ence to  the  system  of  Calvinistic  divinity,  when 
you  take  such  high  ground  in  its  favour,  and  pro- 
nounce upon  the  opinions  of  those  who  dissent 

•  I  bet^  to  be  particularly  understood  here  as  speaking  of  G;^enuinc 
unmixed  Calvinism  ;  such  us  it  appears  in  the  Institutes  of  Calvin,  and 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  Its  peculiarities  arc,  absolute, 
unconditional  election  and  reprobation^  partial  redemption,  irresistible 
^race,  and  final  perseverance.  This  system,  even  the  editors  of  the 
Christian  Observer,  it  will  be  shown,  speak  of  in  terms  of  strong-  con 
demnation. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVlNtSM.  221 

irom  it,  in  terms  so  extremely  inagisterial  ?  You 
represent  the  consequences  which  flow  from  the 
rejection  of  Calvinism  as  to  the  last  degree  shock- 
ing  and  absurd.  You  declare  the  doctrine  of  your 
opponents  to  be  "  inconsistent  with  itself^  dishonour- 
able to  God^  and  comfortless  to  man ;"  You  brand 
it  as  "  a  gloomy  system  of  possibilities  and  per- 
adventures,  nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  likely  to  land 
the  believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned,  as  in  the 
paradise  of  God."*  In  what  part  of  my  Letters 
e  I  indulged  in  equal  freedom  of  expression  ? 
Still,  I  find  no  fault  with  this  portion  of  your  work. 
1  am  the  advocate  of  frank  discussion.  And  had 
you  abstained,  on  all  occasions,  from  persona/  attack^ 
I  should  have  been  very  far  from  applying  to  you 

tii^everity  of  language,  which,  however  painful 
it  was  to  me  to  employ  it,  I  considered  as  imperi- 
ously called  for  by  the  rules  of  truth  and  justice. 

Again — Have  I  given  so  much  as  the  slightest 
hint  that  there  can  be  no  salvation  for  those  who 
embrace  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  ?  God  forbid 
that  such  a  sentiment  should  ever  enter  into  my 
heart !  And  yet,  in  that  part  of  your  work  in  which 
it  appears  to  be  your  object  to  set  forth  the  utmost 
extent  of  your  charitable  ideas,  you  go  no  further 
than  to  admit  the  possibility  of  salvation  to  those 
who  reject  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  in  ivords;\  thus 
consigning  all  who  reject  it  not  merely  in  ivords, 
but  in  substance,  to  inevitable  perdition.  After 
this,  you  will  permit  me  to  express  my  astonish - 

*  CoiUinuation  of  Letters,  p.  338,  339.  f  I^'^-  P-  24<^ 


222  CALVINISM.  LET.  Ylll, 

ment  that  you  should  suffer  yourself  to  say  a  sin- 
gle word  as  to  the  freedom  of  expression  in  which 
I  have  indulsfed  on  the  subject  before  us. 

You  assert,  in  the  most  positive  terms,  that  the 
doctrines  of  Calvinism  are  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  of  England.  If  this  be  so,  it  must  follow 
that  the  great  body  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of 
the  United  States  are  traitors  to  the  sacred  cause 
which  they  have  expressly  pledged  themselves  to 
maintain.  This,  indeed,  is  a  charge  which  Cal- 
vinists  omit  no  opportunity  of  bringing  against 
them.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  ascertain 
how  far  it  is  founded  in  truth.  Let  me  solicit  the 
attention  of  candid  Pr^  sbyterians  to  a  very  brief 
investigation  of  the  subject. 

We  must,  in  the  first  place,  ascertain  precisely 
what  Calvinism  is. 

This  is  the  more  necessary  from  the  pains  which 
have  been  taken  to  hide  the  true  features  of  the 
system  from  the  public  view.  So  abhorrent  are 
the  distinguishing  principles  of  Calvinism  from  the 
best  feelings  of  our  nature,  and  so  contrary  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  and  to  common  sense, 
that  its  advocates  seem  afraid  to  set  it  forth  in  its 
naked  simplicity.  It  is  only  in  some  disguised 
form  that  they  can  hope  to  give  it  currency.  Ac- 
cordingly, they  dwell  upon  the  corruption  of  man, 
-and  upon  the  fundamental  doctrines  of. the  Cross, 
in  a  way  evidently  calculated  to  lead  the  public  to 
suppose  that  they  form  the  line  of  distinction 
between  Calvinists  and  other  professing  Chris- 
tians.    This  is  extremely  uncandid  and  unjust. 


LET.  VI [I.  eALVlNISM.  22^ 

The  distinguishing  cloctrincs  of  the  Cross  liav^ 
notliing  to  do  with  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism. 
Until  the  fourth  centur)',  these  peculiarities  were 
utterly  unknown;  being  introduced,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, by  St.  Austin,  who  was  very  far,  however, 
from  carrying  matters  to  the  same  extreme  with 
the  adventurous  Reformer  of  Geneva.* 

Were  1  called  upon  to  point  out  that  fundamen- 
tal principle,  which  may  be  considered  as  com- 
prising the  sum  and  substance  of  Christianity, 
and  as  being  essential  to  its  very  existence,  I 
should  fix,  w  ithout  one  moment's  hesitation,  upon 
the  great  doctrine  of  redemption  from  sin  and 
death  by  the  blood  of  a  crucified  Saviour.  This 
doctrine  is  not  less  characteristic  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament than  of  the  New.  The  great  difference, 
indeed,  between  the  two  Testaments,  lies  in  this ; 
that  the  first  directs  the  eye  of  the  faithful  to  a 
Saviour,  who,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  is  to  appear 
in  the  flesh ;  while  the  last  describes  a  Saviour 
who  has  actually  appeared  in  the  flesh,  and  has 
actually  ofl'ered  up,  in  his  own  proper  person,  a 
full,  perfect,  and  suflicient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and 
satisfaction,  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Un- 
der both  Testaments,  man  is  described  as  in  a  state 
of  captivity  to  sin  and  death.  Under  both,  he  is 
described  as  ransomed  by  the  blood  of  sprinkling, 
which  speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel. 

So  far  is  it  from  being  true,  that  Calvinists  are 


*  The  later  works  of  St.  Austin,  in  fact,  contain  opinions  and  argu. 
ments  which  are  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  system  of  Calvlu 
This  is  shown  by  Dr.  Laurence  in  his  Bampton  Letters, 


224  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

distinguished  from  other  professing  Christians  by 
their  attachment  to  this  great  doctrine,  that  they 
are  to  be  known,  emphatically,  by  the  limitation 
which  they  give  to  the  doctrine,  in  confining  the 
efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  a  few  elected 
favourites  of  an  arbitrary  sovereign.  It  is  not  by 
their  adherence  to  the  genuine  doctrines  of  the 
Cross,  but  by  the  corruptions  which  they  endea- 
vour to  graft  on  those  doctrines,  that  the  faithful 
historian  must  describe  them. 

Let  the  system  in  question  be  now  fairly  stated, 
and  compared  with  the  public  formularies  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

Our  first  parents,  in  transgressing  the  law  of 
God,  brought  actual  guilt,  not  only  upon  them- 
selves, but  upon  their  posterity.  The  human  race 
was  summed  up  in  Adam.  His  sin  was  imputed 
to  his  descendants,  so  as  to  become  the  proper  and 
personal  sin  of  each  one  of  them,  by  the  positive 
decree  of  God.  Thus,  all  men,  the  moment  they 
enter  the  world,  are,  strictly  speaking^  sinners; 
have  actual  guilt  upon  their  heads;  for  which  they 
are  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  justly 
made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual, 
temporal,  and  eternal. 

Out  of  this  condemned  mass  of  mankind,  thus 
doomed,  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  to  eternal  wo,  from 
the  moment  of  their  birth,  it  has  pleased  God  to 
select  a  certain  portion  by  an  absolute  and  irresist- 
ible decree;  such  decree  fixing  the  precise  num- 
ber, and  ascertaining  the  very  individuals  that  are 
to  be  saved.     For  this  elect  part  of  the  human 


LET.  VIH. 


CALVINISM.  225 


race  alone  did  the  Saviour  die ;  to  it  alone  is  ef- 
fectual grace  given  ;  which  irresistibly  and  infal- 
libly converts  the  soul  to  God.  Conversion  is 
wholly  a  divine  work; — man  is  absolutely  passive 
therein.  And,  finally,  the  elect,  being  thus  brought 
to  God  by  the  operation  of  irresistible  grace,  can- 
not permanently  fall  away,  but  will  certainly  per- 
severe to  the  end,  and  be  saved. 

The  reprobates  remain  in  that  condemned  state 
in  which  they  came  into  the  world.  No  Saviour 
is  provided  for  them  5  no  effectual  grace  is  ever 
given  to  them.  The  conversion  of  the  soul  to 
God  being  entirely  the  result  of  special  grace,  and 
this  grace  not  being  vouchsafed  to  the  reprobate, 
it  follows  that  their  conversion  is  a  thing  impossi- 
ble. In  short,  they  come  into  the  world  under  an 
absolute  necessity  of  perishing. 

Listen  to  the  language  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith ! 

"  Our  first  parents  being  the  root  of  all  mankind, 
the  guilt  of  their  sin  was  imputed  to  all  their  pos- 
terity." "  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual, 
doth,  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner, 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries, 
spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal."*  "  By  the  de- 
cree of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  and  others  foreordained  to  everlasting 
death.f     "  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predesti- 

*  Westminster  Confession  of  JPaith,  chap.  vi.  soct.  3.  6 
t  Ibid.  char),  iii.  sect.  3. 


i26  CALVlNlbM.  LET.  VIII. 

nated  and  foreordained,  are  particularly  and  un- 
changeably designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  cer- 
tain and  deQnite,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased 
or  diminished."*  "  Those  of  mankind  that  are 
predestinated  unto  life,  God,  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eter- 
nal and  immutable  purpose,  hath  chosen  in  Christ, 
unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace 
and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  ^  or  good 
work's^  or  perseverance  in  either  of  thern^  or  any 
other  thing  in  the  creature^  as  conditions^  or  causes 
movins  him  thereunto.^^\  "  None  are  redeemed 
by  Christ,  eifectually  called,  justified,  adopted, 
sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only^l  "  Ef- 
fectual caUing  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace 
alone,  not  from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man, 
who  is  altogether  passive  therein."^  "  They 
whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  beloved,  effectu- 
ally called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  nei- 
ther totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of 
grace ;  but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the 
end,  and  be  eternally  saved.  This  perseverance 
of  the  saints  depends  not  upon  their  own  free 
will,  but  upon  the  immutability  of  the  decree  of 
election."||  "  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was 
j)leased,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over 
Ins  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to 
dislionour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise 
qf  his  glorious  justice."1I 

•   Wcstminsler  Confession  of  Faitli,  chap.  iii.  sect.  4. 
■\  Ibul.  cliap.  iii  sect.  5.  t  Ibid    chap.  iii.  sect.  6. 

§  Ihid.  chap.  x.  sect.  2.  \\  Ibid.  chap.  XYii.  sect.  1,  i. 

^  Ibid,  chap.  iii.  sect.  7. 


LET.  VIll.  CALVINISM.  227 

Listen  lo  the  words  of  the  man  tVom  wlioni  the 
system  in  question  has  derived  its  name. 

"  God  not  only  Ibresavv  that  Adam  woukl  fall, 
but  also  ordained  that  he  should.''^*  "  All  men  arc 
not  created  in  like  estate ;  but  some  are  foreor- 
dained to  eternal  life,  others  to  eternal  damna- 
tion.^t  "  God  of  his  will  and  pleasure  so  ordains, 
that  amongst  some  men,  some  should  be  so  born 
as  to  be  devoted  from  the  womb  to  certain  death, 
who,  by  their  destruction,  might  glorify  his  name." 
"  Whom,  therefore,  he  hath  created  unto  the 
shame  of  life,  and  destruction  of  death,  that  they 
should  be  instruments  of  his  wrath,  and  examples 
of  his  severity,  that  they  may  come  to  their  end ; 
at  one  time  he  deprives  them  of  the  power  of 
hearing  his  word ;  at  another,  he  the  more  blinds 
and  stupifies  them  by  the  preaching  of  it. "J  "  Be- 
hold God  calls  to  them  (the  reprobates)  that  they 
may  be  more  deaf:  He  kindles  a  light,  that  they 
maybe  more  blind :  He  brings  his  doctrine  to  them, 
that  they  may  be  more  confounded ;  and  applies 
the  remedy  to  them,  but  that  they  may  not  be  heal- 
ed."§  "  The  reprobates  w  ould  be  thought  excus- 
able in  sinning,  because  they  cannot  avoid  the 
necessity  of  sinning;  especially  since  such  ne- 
cessity is  cast  upon  them  by  the  ordination  of  God. 
But  we  deny  that  they  are  thence  rightly  excused,  "jj 
The  difference  between  the  elect  and  the  reprobate. 


*  Institutes,  lib.  ili,  clinp.  4.     Also  Calvin  de  Prccics.  p.  607.. 
t  Institutes,  lib.  iii.  chop.'?!,  rj  ibid.  lib.  iii  oliap..?!>. 

^  Ibid,  lib,  iii.  chap.  24.  \\  Ibid..  T-l)   <n 


228  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

Calvin  resolves  solely  into  the  arbitrary  will  of 
God.* 

We  have  thus  shown,  from  the  most  authentic 
evidence,  what  Calvinism  really  is. 

We  will  now  set  down,  in  a  few  brief  proposi- 
tions, the  principles  in  which  Calvinists  and  anti- 
Calvinists  agree,  and  in  which  they  differ;  and 
then  test  the  leading  tenets  of  Calvinism  by  the 
standards  of  the  Church  of  England. 

1.  They  unite  in  the  great  doctrine  of  redemp- 
tion from  sin  and  death  by  the  blood  of  a  cruci- 
fied Saviour.  They  regard  the  death  of  Christ  as 
a  real,  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin ;  enabling 
God,  in  consistency  with  the  essential  perfections 
of  his  nature,  to  receive  transgressors  to  mercy. 
They  believe  that  Christ  not  only  taught  the  effi- 
cacy of  repentance  and  faith,  but  that  he  actually 
imparted  to  them  whatever  efficacy  they  possess, 
by  his  death  and  sufferings ;  that  he  not  only  in- 
formed sinners  of  the  manner  in  which  salvation 
is  to  be  obtained,  but  that  he  absolutely  purchased 
this  salvation  for  them  by  his  meritorious  passion. 

Thus,  in  the  great  and  fundamental  doctrine 
of  satisfaction  for  sin  by  the  cross  of  Christ,  Cal- 
vinists and  anti-Calvinists  unite ;  and  it  is  this 
doctrine  that  principally  distinguishes  them  from 
all  tliose  professors  of  Christianity  who  deny  the 
divinity  and  atonement  of  our  blessed  Lord. 

2.  They  agree  that  the  human  race  has  inher- 
ited from  its  parents  a  corrupt  and  depraved  na- 
ture. 

•  Institutes,  lib.  iii.  chap.  23 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  229 

3.  They  agree  that  man  ^^  cannot  turn  and 
prepare  himself,  by  his  own  natural  strength  and 
good  works,  to  faith  and  calhng  upon  God;"^ 
that  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary 
to  begin,  to  carry  on,  and  to  perfect,  the  work  of 
sanctification.  And  thus  they  are  opposed  to  the 
corrupt  doctrine  of  Pelagius,  which  gives  to  man 
the  powder  of  working  out  his  salvation  by  his  own 
unassisted  efforts. 

The  divinity  and  atonement  of  Christ,  the  cor- 
ruption of  man,  and  the  necessity  of  supernatural 
influence  to  his  conversion  and  sanctification,  arc 
doctrines,  then,  which  are  common  to  the  two 
classes  of  persons  of  whom  we  are  speaking. 
These  are  the  great  and  fundamental  truths  of 
Christianity ;  they  are  the  truths  which  make  the 
Gospel,  emphatically,  a  system  of  grace.  But 
Calvinists  are  not  content  with  these  simple  doc- 
trines of  Scripture.  Actuated  by  a  prying  and 
curious  spirit,  they  labour  to  be  wise  above  what 
is  written ;  they  boldly  attempt  to  fathom  the  un- 
revealed  counsels  of  the  Godhead. 

All  the  leading  truths  of  the  Gospel  Calvinists 
debase,  by  mingling  with  them  their  own  inven- 
tions. Thus  they  corrupt  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  by  limiting  it  to  a  few  arbitrarily  elected 
favourites,  in  opposition  to  the  plain  and  con- 
atant  language  of  Scripture,  which  extends  it  to 
the  whole  human  race.  The  doctrine  of  the  fall 
and  consequent  depravity  of  man  they  corrupt  by 

•  Article  X.  of  «  Free  W^ill" 


230  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIU. 

asserting  that  he  is  wholly  averse  from  all  good, 
and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil ;  thus  making  him  to 
be  a  perfect  fiend.  And  the  doctrine  of  the  super- 
natural influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  mind 
they  equally  corrupt  by  representing  that  influence 
as  absolutely  irresistible  ;  thus  destroying  at  once 
that  free  agency  which  alone  can  constitute  us 
moral  and  accountable  beings. 

But  we  will  now  put  down,  in  brief  propositions, 
and  in  opposite  columns,  the  points  which  distin- 
guish Calvinists  and  anti-Calvinists  from  one  ano- 
ther. 

Calvinisiic  doctrine.         Anii-Calvinistic  doctrine. 

1.  The   human   race  1.  The  doctrine  of  the 

was  summed  up  in  A-  imputation   of   Adam's 

dam;  being  in  his  loins,  guilt  to  his  posterity  is 

it  virtually  assented  to  contrary  both  to  Scrip- 

his  act  of  disobedience,  ture,    and   to   common 

Thus  his  guilt  is  imput-  sense.     It  is  utterly  im- 

ed  to  all  his  posterity,  possible  that  the  proper 

It  follows  that  all  men,  and  personal  guilt  o(  one 

the  moment  they  enter  man  should  become  the 

the   world,  are,  strictly  proper  and  personal  guilt 

speaking,  sinners;  hav-  of  another.     We  inherit 

ing    actual    guilt    upon  a   corrupt   nature  from 

their  heads,  as  much  as  our  first  parents,  but  we 

Adam    had     upon    his  inherit   no    actual  guilt 

violation  of   the  divine  from  them.    When  men 

command.  And  it  would  enter  the  world  they  are 

be  perfectly  consistent  perfectly  free  fn^m  posi- 


LET.  VIII. 


eALVINISM. 


231 


With  both  tlie  justice 
and  the  mercy  of  God, 
to  consign  infants,  in 
consequence  of  the  sin 
of  Adam,  which  is  their 
sin  by  imputation,  to 
eternal  perdition.* 


tive  sin,  which,  indecdj 
they  can  commit  only 
when  they  become  ca- 
pable of  distinguishing 
right  from  wrong.  God 
will  never  condemn  us 
for  the  sin  of  our  first 
parents.  We  shall  be 
called  to  answer  only 
for  our  own  actions.  It 
would  not  be  consistent 
with  the  justice  of  God 
to  consign  infants  to 
eternal  misery  for  the  sin 
of  Adam. 


*  The  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  his  posterity  may 
■a'ell  be  considered  as  the  basis  of  the  Calvinistic  scheme ;  indeed,  it 
seems  to  be  necessary,  as  a  ground  work  for  the  decree  of  unconditional 
election  and  reprobation.  And  yet  it  was  not  taught  by  Calvin,  but 
was  added  by  his  followers,  who  perceived  that  it  was  wanting  to  render 
the  system  complete.  The  foundation  of  what  now  passes  under  the 
name  of  Calvinism  was  laid  by  St.  Augustine,  in  the  fifth  century  ;  from 
which  period  the  doctrine  of  an  arbitrary  predestination  has  existed,  in 
a  greater  or  less  degree,  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  Calvin  carried  the 
system  further  than  St.  Augustine,  and  made  it  more  complete  and 
consistent.  Still  it  was  not  brought  to  the  state  in  which  it  now  is, 
resting  on  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  his  posterity  as  its  funda- 
mental principle,  until  some  time  after  Calvin's  death.  The  system  is 
now  worked  up  into  a  consistent  whole — a  system  not  less  artificial  nor 
less  distant  from  the  simplicity  of  scriptural  truth,  than  \he  Romish 
doctrine  of  the  merit  of  works,  by  which,  immediately  before  tlie  re- 
formation, the  great  doctrine  of  redemption  through  Christ  was  super- 
seded and  lost.  The  creed  of  the  schoolmen,  and  the  Calvinistic  creed 
of  partial  redemption  and  irresistible  grace,  may  be  considered  as  the 
opposite  extremes,  between  which  lies  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  re- 
demption through  the  merits  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Laurence,  in  his  Bampton  Lectures,  proves,  by  quotations  from 
the  works  of  Calvin,  that  he  denied  the  doctrine  nf  imputation.  Sep 
not©  13,  on  Sermon  III. 


232                          CALVINISM.  let/viii. 

2.  Out  of  the  human  2.  The  doctrine  of 
race,  thus  justly  expos-  absolute,  iniconditionaU 
ed,  by  the  guik  of  its  election  and  reprobation 
parents,  to  eternal  n'o,  is  totally  unfounded  in 
it  pleased  God  to  select  Scripture.  Election  is 
a  certain  portion  by  an  a  word  which  often  oc- 
eternal  decree;  such  de-  curs  in  the  sacred  writ- 
cree  fixing  the  precise  ings;  but  it  marks  the 
number,  and  ascertain-  appointment  of  nations 
ing  the  very  individuals  or  bodies  of  men  to  spi- 
to  be  saved.  This  de-  ritual  privileges ;  not  the 
cree  is  altogether  arbi-  eternal  predestination  of 
trary  and  absolute;  be-  one  set  of  persons  to 
ing  totally  independent  happiness,  and  of  ano- 
of,  and  unconnected  ther  to  misery.  Even 
with,  any  "  foresight  of  admitting  that  the  words 
faith  or  works,  or  any  election  and  predestina- 
other  thing,  in  the  crea-  Hon,  as  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, as  conditions  or  ture,  are  properly  ap- 
causes  moving  thereun-  plicable  to  individual 
to."  persons,  still,  ft  is   not 

The  rest  of  mankind  an  absolute  and  uncon- 

are,  in  the  same  arbi-  ditional  election  or  pre- 

trary  and  unconditional  destination    that    is   set 

way,   reprobated ;    that  forth,  but  an  election  or 

is,  they  are  doomed,  or  predestination     founded 

decreed,  or  predestinat-  on  the  divine  foreknow- 

ed,  from  all  eternity,  to  ledge  of  the  use  or  abuse 

perdition.  which  individuals  would 

make  of  the  means  of 
grace. 

The  eternal  decrees 


LET.  VIII. 


CALVINISM. 


233 


3.  For  this  elect  por- 
tion of  the  human  race 
alone  did  the  Saviour 
die.  The  reprobate  have 
nothing  to  do  with  him. 
He  made  no  atonement 
for  their  sins.  They  are 


of  the  divine  mind  ron- 
stitute  a  subject  which 
we  are  wholly  unable 
to  fathom.  Our  busi- 
ness is  to  attend  to  the 
revealed  will  of  God; 
being  well  assured  that 
his  secret  and  his  reveal- 
ed  will  cannot  possibly 
be  inconsistent.  And  as 
he  expressly  calls  upon 
all  to  come  unto  him, 
and  declares  it  to  !)e  his 
will  that  none  should  be 
lost,  we  may  rest  satis- 
fied that  there  is  no 
eternal,  unconditional 
decree  consigning  the 
bulk  of  mankind  to  in- 
evitable perdition.  To 
suppose  such  a  decree, 
is  to  ascribe  to  God  a 
secret  will  in  direct  op- 
position to  his  revealed 
word. 

3.  Our  blessed  Savi- 
our died,  not  merely 
for  the  elect,  but  for  all 
mankind.  "  He  is  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins, 
and  not  for  ours  only, 
but  also  for  the  sins  of 


30 


254  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

as  utterly  destitute  of  all  the  whole  world."  "He 
interest  in  his  blood  as  gave  himself  a  ransom 
if  it  had  never  been  for  all."  "  He  tasted 
shed.  death  for  every  man." 

By  the  atonement  of 
Christ     all     men     are 
brought  into  a  salvable 
state ;    in  other   words, 
salvation     is     rendered 
possible    to    all;    it    is 
placed  within  the  reach 
of  all.     Every  individu- 
al, by  the  assistance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
is  denied  to  none  who 
ask  for  it,  may  work  out 
his  own  salvation.     We 
are  all  equally  interest- 
ed in  the  blood  of  Christ 
— that  is,  the  blood  of 
Christ  was  so  far  shed 
for    all,    as   to    extend 
equally  to  all  the  possi- 
bility of  salvation.     All 
are  called  ; — they  alone, 
who  refuse  to  come,  are 
rejected;  and  none  la- 
bour under  any  impossi- 
bility of  coming.     The 
Holy   Spirit    is    so   far 
given  to  all,  as  to  enable 
all  to    repent  and    be 


tET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  235 

saved.     Thus  it  is  that 
Christ  died  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world. 
4.  The  elect  are,   in        4.  The  doctrine  of  zV- 
due    time,     effectually     resistible  grace    has  no 
called  ;  that  is,  they  are     foundation  in  Scripture, 
irresistibly  converted  to     God  deals  with   us   as 
God      Such  conversion     free  agents.  It  is  no  part 
is  wholly  a  divine  work;     of  his   system  to  corn- 
man   being    absolutely     pel  us  either  to  believe 
passive    therein.      And     his  word,  or  to  obey  hi^ 
the    elect,     being   thus     law.     He  exhibits  suffi- 
converted,    in   the    first     cient  evidence  for  thq 
instance,  by  irresistible     one,  and  proposes  ade- 
grace,   are,   afterwards,     quate   motives   for  th^ 
held  by  the  mighty  pow-     other;    leaving  us  free 
er  of   God.     It  is   ab-     to  believe  or  disbelieve 
solutely   impossible  for    in  the  first  case,  and  to 
them  to  fall  away  from     obey  or  disobey  in  the 
a  state  of  grace,  and  pe-     last.    Man,  therefore,  is 
rish.     They  will  infalli-     not  absolutely  passive  in 
bly  persevere  to  the  end,     conversion.      In    short, 
and  be  saved.  conversion  and  sanctifi- 

cation  are  partly  a  divi7ie 
work,  and  partly  a  hu- 
man ivorL  Something 
is  left  for  us  to  do.  We 
are  not  impelled  by  ir- 
resistible grace  as  mat- 
ter is  impelled  by  phy- 
sical force.  Of  our- 
selves we    can   do  no- 


23S 


CALVINISM. 


LET.VIIK 


5.  To  the  reprobate 
salvation  is  impossible. 
As  no  atonins:  blood  was 
ever  shed  for  them,  so 
no  elTectual  grace  is  ever 
given  to  the  n. 

Left  to  ourselves,  we 
inevitably  parish.  Ttie 
repro )  te  are  left  to 
themselves.  That  as- 
sistance of  the  Spirit, 
without  ^vhich  we  can- 
not repent  and  live, 
is  absolutely  withheld 
from  them.  In  short, 
they  are  doomed  from 
all  eternity  to  perdition. 
And  God,  so  far  from 
giving  them  the  means 
of  salvation,  absolutely 
inclines  them  to  evil, 
and  fits  and  prepares 
them,  as  vessels  of  wrath, 
for  the  display  of  his 
glorious  justice,  in  the 
torments  of  never  end- 
ing despair. 

6.  Infants,  as  well  as 


thing.  Through  Christ 
strengthening  us  we  can 
do  all  things. 

5.  As  Christ  died  for 
all  men,  so  sufficient 
grace  is  given  to  all  men. 
In  other  words,  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  so  far  given 
to  all,  as  to  enable  all  to 
work  ou  t  their  salvation . 
Irresistible  grace  is  con- 
ferred on  none; — suffi- 
cient grace  is  denied  to 
none.  For  all  God  gave 
his  Son;  to  all  he  sends 
his  Spirit ;  and  the  sin- 
ner is  never  finally  re- 
jected until  he  rejects 
his  God. 


6.  All  persons  dying 


LET.  VIII. 


CALVINISM. 


237 


adults,  are  divided  into 
the  two  classes  of  elect 
and  reprobate.  The 
former  are  saved;  the 
latter  jierish. 

7.  "  They  who,  hav- 
ing never  heard  the 
Gospel,  know  not  Je- 
sus Christ,  and  believe 
not  in  him,  cannot  be 
saved."  The  heathen 
world  will  be  indiscrimi' 
nately  lost. 


in  infancy  are  received 
to  the  mercy  of  God. 


7.  Salvation  is  possi- 
ble to  the  heathen.  'J'hey 
will  be  judged,  not  by 
the  law  of  the  Gospel, 
of  which  they  are  total- 
ly ignorant,  but  by  the 
particular     law     under 
which    they   may  have 
been  placed.    Still,  sal- 
vation is,  in  all  cases, 
and  under  all  circum- 
stances,    through     the 
blood  of  Christ. 
Let  us  now  very  briefly  compare  some  of  the 
cardinal  principles  of  Calvinism  with  the  Articles 
and  other  Standards  of  the  Church  of  England. 
We  will  begin  with  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 

IMPUTATION. 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  positively 
declares  that  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  is  imputed 
to  their  posterity ;  that  it  brings  guilt  upon  them  ; 
that  it  binds  them  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and 
makes  them  justly  subject  to  eternal  death.* 

In  what  part  of  the  Standards  of  our  Church  is 
this  doctrine  to  be  found  ? 


*  Chapter  VII. 


2SB  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

The  ninth  Article  defines  original  sin  to  be 
^'  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every 
man  whereby  he  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness."  Does  the  Article  say,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
that  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  is  imputed  to  their 
posterity,  that  it  bmigs  guilt  upon  them,  and  hinds 
them  over  to  the  wrath  of  God?  By  no  means. 
The  Article  declares,  simply,  that  we  derive  from 
our  first  parents  a  fallen  and  corrupt  nature,  in 
professed  opposition  to  the  Pelagian  idea,  that  we 
come  into  the  world  in  a  state  as  pure  as  was  that 
of  Adam  before  his  fall. — But  the  Article  goes  on 
— "  And,  therefore,  in  every  person  born  into  this 
world  it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation." 
The  word  it  here  refers  to  the  corrupt  nature  of 
man.  This  corrupt  nature,  then,  is  said  to  de- 
serve God's  wrath  and  damnation;  in  other  words, 
to  be  odensive  in  his  pure  and  holy  sight.  The 
term  damnation,  at  the  time  the  Articles  were 
composed,  signified,  simply,  condemnation,  dis- 
approbation, displeasure.  The  ninth  Article,  then, 
merely  asserts  that  we  inherit  from  our  first  pa- 
rents a  nature  positively  corrupt,  and  that  this 
corrupt  nature  is  offensive  to  God:  it  by  no 
means  asserts  that  man,  in  consequence  of  the 
corrupt  nature  which  he  brings  into  the  world, 
deserves,  or  will  incur  eternal  damnation ;  which 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.* 


*  If  the  posterity  of  Adam,  bein^  in  his  loins,  assented  to  his  act 
of  disobedience,  and  thus  sinned  in  hici,  or  if  the  original  transgrcs- 


LET.  VIII. 


CALVINISM.  239 


In  order  to  understand  the  Article  in  question, 
we  must  refer  to  the  Popish  errors  against  which 


nion  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  ofFsprlng-,  so  as  to  bring-  g'uilt  upon 
tliem ;  it  must  follow  that  we  are  bound  to  repent  of  the  disobedience 
in  question.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable.  Now,  can  any  thing  b« 
more  absurd  than  the  idea  of  calling'  upon  men  to  repent  of  an  act 
committed  before  tliey  were  born  ?  Is  not  the  bare  statement  of  such 
a  proposition  enough  to  cover  the  whole  doctrine  with  ridicule  ?  Tran- 
substantiation  itself  is  not  quite  so  preposterous. 

The  constant  language  of  Scripture  is,  that  we  shall  be  judged  by 
the  deeds  done  in  the  body; — not  a  word  is  said  of  our  responsibility 
for  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  thing,  indeed,  is  absolutely  incredible  and 
impossible  in  its  own  nature,  and,  therefore,  could  never  be  admitted 
to  be  the  genuine  doctrine  of  Scripture,  even  if  passages  could  be 
produced,  in  which  it  might  seem  to  be  contained.  We  must  have  re- 
course to  a  figurative  interpretation,  where  it  is  necessary  to  preserve 
us  from  absurdity.  What  can  be  more  explicit  than  the  language. 
This  is  my  body— this  is  my  blood  ?  But  are  we  to  believe  that  the 
bread  is  flesh,  and  the  wine  blood,  in  opposition  to  the  irresistible 
conviction  of  our  senses,  that  they  are  not  blood  and  flesh,  but  wine 
and  bread?  Surely  not. — This  is  my  representative  body — This  is  my 
representative  blood.  And  when  Scripture  says,  **  By  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners,"  are  we  to  believe  that  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam  assented  to  his  act  of  disobedience,  and  thus  actually 
sinned  in  him,  so  as  to  become  positively  guilty  before  God  ?  What, 
is  there  no  way  of  construing  the  passage  so  as  to  prevent  it  from  be- 
ing at  variance  with  the  immediate  and  irresistible  dictates  of  the  hu- 
man mind?  Guilt  can  be  brought  upon  us  only  by  acts  of  omission  oP 
of  commission  to  which  we  expressly  or  impliedly  assent.  It  is  just  as 
great  a  violation  of  the  established  laws  of  our  rational  nature,  to  say 
that  we  are  guilty,  in  reference  to  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  as  to 
say  that  two  and  tWo  make  fire,  or  that  the  whol-  is  superior  to  the 
sum  of  its  parts. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  understand  the  passage — "  By  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners  ?"  It  points  to  that  curse  of  death 
which  the  sin  of  Adam  brought  upon  his  posterity ;  they  were  m^de 
subject  to  death,  the  penalty  of  sin.  That  this  is  the  true  sense,  is 
evident  from  the  context;  and  such  was  the  interpretation  put  upon  the 
passage  by  the  Christian  Fathers. 

The  view  taken  of  the  subject  of  original  sin,  by  the  Reformer 
Zuinglius,  is  peculiarly  just  and  liappy — "  Sin  is,  properly,  trans- 
ffressioa  of  a  law ;  and  where  thara  is  no  law,  there  i,s  uo  transgression. 


240  CAtVlNlSW.  LET.  YllU 

it  was  designed  to  guard.  At  the  period  of  the 
Reformation,  a  very  artificial  system  of  divinity 
prevailed  in  the  Church  of  Rome ;  the  fruit  of 
the  metaphysical  disquisitions  of  the  schoolmen. 
They  maintained,  aTiong  other  things,  that  the 
soul  comes  pure  and  immaculate  into  existence; 
the  corruption  induced  by  the  fall  being  con- 
fined entirely  to  the  body.  Original  sin  is  the 
loss  of  original  righteousness.  Now,  the  school- 
men regarded  original  righteousness  as  forming 
no  part  of  man's  nature  in  his  state  of  innocence, 
but  merely  as  an  adventitious  ornament,  of  which 
he  might  be  deprived  without  forfeiting  his  inte- 
grity. Hence  they  considered  fallen  man  as  the 
object  of  divine  displeasure,  not  fro?n  any  thing 
in  him  positively  offensive ;  but  simply  from  the 
loss  of  an  acceptable  quality.  The  doctrine  of 
the  depravity  of  our  nature  was,  in  this  way,  com- 
pletely superseded ;  and,  on  the  basis  of  the  un- 
imp.  ired  purity  and  energy  of  the  soul,  was 
erected  that  system  of  merit,  according  to  which 
man  was  represented  as  able  by  his  own  natural 
strength  to  deserve  the  grace  of  God,  and  then 

Our  great  ancestor  sinned ;  but  which  of  us  mecklled  -vrith  the  forbid- 
den fruit?  There  is  then  no  denying-  that  orig^inal  sin,  as  it  exists  in 
us,  the  descendants  of  Adam,  is  not  properly  nin.  It  is  a  disease  ;  it  is 
a  condition.  It  may  be  called  sin,  but  it  is  not  so  in  strictness  of  speech. 
Thus  a  perfidious  enemy,  when  taken  in  war,  may  deserve  to  be  made 
&  slave.  His  children  also  become  slaves,  hut  the  fault  was  in  the  fa- 
ther. The  children  are  not  to  blame,  yet  they  suffer  for  the  sin  of 
their  father;  and  if  you  choose  to  denominate  their  state  of  slavery- 
sin,  because  by  sin  they  were  broug-ht  into  that  state,  1  shall  not  ob- 
ject :  It  is,  however,  in  this  sense,  that  we  are  by  nature  the  children 
of  wrath."     See  Milner's  Church  Mistory^  vl.  v.  p.  577- 


LET.  VI n.  CALVINISM.  241 

by  the  aid  of  such  gnice  to  deserve  eternal  life. 
Thus  the  atonement  of  Christ  was  rendered  su- 
perllaoiis,  and  man  became  in  reality  his  own 
saviour. 

In  opposition  to  all  this,  the  Ens^lish  Reformers, 
treading  in  the  steps  of  their  Lutheran  predeces* 
sors,  maintained  that  original  sin  is  the  loss,  not 
merely  of  an  adventitious  ornament,  but  of  the 
primitive  innocence  and  rectitude  of  our  nature; 
in  consequence  of  which  we  are  inclined  to  evil. 
Accordingly,  they  held  that  our  nature  is  posi- 
tively corrupt  and  ofifensive  in  the  sight  of  God; 
but  they  did  not  go  on  and  declare  that  this  cor- 
rupt nature,  with  w  hich  we  ;ire  born,  brings  actual 
guilt  upon  us,  and  thereby  justly  subjects  us  to 
the  sentence  of  perdition. 

By  adverting,  in  this  way,  to  the  errors  which 
prevailed  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  we 
are  enabled  clearly  to  understand  the  language  of 
the  ninth  Article  of  the  Church  of  England.* 

The  soul  of  man,  notwithstanding  the  fall,  con- 
tinues pure  and  unvitiated ;  the  loss  of  original 
righteousness  being  the  loss  not  of  a  connatural 
quality  of  the  mind,  but  merely  of  an  unessential 
ornament. 

Thus  spoke  the  schoolmen.— 

With  a  distinct  reference  to  this  grossly  erro- 
neous system,  the  English  Reformers  declared 
the  nature  of  man  to  be  vitiated  in  soid  not  less 


•  See  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  where  this  subject  ia  fully  in- 
restigatcd  aiiJ  e?:plained. 

31 


242  CALVINISM.  LET.  Vlir* 

than  ill  body;  to  be  positrvelj  corrupt,  and  there- 
fore oflensive  to  a  Being  of  infinite  purity. 

Bat  this  is  widely  diiferent  from  the  Calvinis- 
tic  doctrine  of  the  iinputctlion  of  the  sin  of  our 
first  parents  to  their  posterity,  so  as  to  render 
them  actually  guilty  before  God,  and  deserving, 
ap.nt  from  all  positive  transgression,  of  eternal 
punishment.  There  is  not  a  trace  of  this  doc- 
trine in  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England : 
indeed,  it  was  not  taught  even  by  Calvin  himself, 
but  was  invented  by  his  followers,  long  after  his 
death,  with  the  view  of  supplying  a  palpable  de- 
ficiency in  his  theological  scheme. 

In  the  fundamental  point,  therefore,  of  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  guilt  to  his  posterity,  the  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  which  is  one  of  the 
great  standards  of  Calvinistic  divinity,  are  clearly 
at  variance.^ 

With  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
guilt  to  his  posterity  is  naturally  connected  that 
of  an  arbitrary  predestination  of  one  part  of  the 

*  It  may  be  well  to  mention  here  that  the  Calvinists,  in  the  year  1643, 
when  they  were  triumphant  in  England,  set  about  revising  and  alter- 
ing the  Articles,  for  the  purpose,  to  use  the  language  of  Neal,  **  of 
making  them  more  express  and  determinate  in  favour  of  Calvinism  "f 
The  article  o(  Original  Sin  they  altered  thus — "  Original  Sin  standeth 
not  in  the  following  of  Adam,  but  f  together  with  his  Jirst  sin  imputedj 
it  is  the  fault,  &c." 

This  shows  tliat  our  Articles,  even  in  the  opinion  of  Calvinists  them- 
selves, do  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  lo 
iiis  posterity. 

t  Hiitory  of  the  Puritans,  vol  i.  V-  *%  edition  1754- 


LET.   VHI.  CALVINISM.  24S 

human  race  to  eternal  happiness,  and  of  another 
to  eternal  misery.  \Vc  are  told  that  we  come  in- 
to the  world  under  the  burden  of  positive  guilt : 
for  which,  inde|)endcnt]y  of  all  personal  trang- 
gression,  it  would  be  just  in  God  to  consign  us  to 
perdition.  The  way  is  thus  cleared  for  the  de- 
cree of  God  electing  some  individuals,  and  re- 
probating others.  This  decree  is  entirely  abso- 
solute;  being  "  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or 
good  works,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature, 
as  conditions  or  causes  moving  thereunto."*  Now, 
in  what  part  of  the  formularies  of  the  Church 
of  England  is  such  language  to  be  found?  The 
Liturgy  not  only  says  no  such  thing,  but  holds 
an  opposite  language,  and  breathes  an  opposite 
spirit  in  every  page.  There  is  not  a  trace  of 
the  doctrine  in  the  Homilies.  But  the  seven- 
teenth Article,  entitled,  "  of  Predestination  and 
Election,"  is  always  triumphantly  produced  by 
tlie  Calvinist  as  decisive  evidence.  Well,  here  are 
the  words  predestination  and  election;  of  course 
the  Church  of  England  is  Calvinistic,  In  this 
very  superficial  way  do  most  of  those  proceed 
who  are  continually  reproaching  us  with  a  depar- 
ture from  th€  standards  of  our  faith.  No  one  de- 
nies that  the  words,  election,  predestination,  are  to 
be  found  in  Scripture;  but  the  Calvinist  is  bound 
to  prove,  first,  that  these  words,  as  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  in  the  seventeenth  Article  of  our  Church, 
refer  to  the  future  and  eternal  state  of  individuals ; 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  ch;ip.  i!i.  sect.  5. 


244  GALVINtSM.  tfci.  viiu 

and,  seron'^lr,  that  the  prerleslination  of  indivi* 
duals  to  life  or  death  is  entirely  independent  of  all 
personal  qualification f^ ;  being  resolvable  solely  into 
the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God. 

Let  us  admit,  for  a  moment,  that  predestina- 
tion is  to  be  taken,  not  in  a  collective^  but  an  indi^ 
vidual  seme  ; — still,  the  question  arisee,  is  it  con- 
ditional, or  is  it  absolute  ?  Calvin  thus  answers 
^!— "  All  are  not  created  in  likfe  estate,  but  to  some 
eternal  life,  to  others  eternal  death  is  foreap- 
pointed."*  "  But  those  whom  he  appointeth  to 
damnation,  to  them,  we  say,  by  his  just  and  ir- 
re[)rehensible,  but  also  incomprehensible  judg- 
ment, the  entry  of  life  is  blocked  up."t  "  There- 
fore if  we  cannot  assign  a  reason  why  he  should 
coiifer  mercy  on  those  that  are  his,  but  because  thus 
it  pleaseth  him;  neither,  indeed,  shall  we  have 
any  other  cause  in  rejecting  of  others,  than  his  own 
will."t  Not  less  positive  is  the  language  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  "  By  the  decree 
of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some 
men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting 
life,  and  others  foreordained  to  everlasting  death." 
^^  Their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  that  it 
cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished."  "  They 
are  chosen  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  con- 
ditions, or  causes  moving  thereunto."  "  The  rest 
of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  for  the  glory  of  his 


*  Institutes,  lib.  iil.  cliap.  21,  sect.  5.        f  Ibid.  chap.  21,  sect. 
4  Ibid.  chap.  32,  sect.  11. 


LET.  VIII 


eALViNISM.  2^i5 


sovereign   power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by, 
and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour  and  wratli."* 

Thus  God  unconditionally  saves  some,  and 
destroys  others,  by  an  eternal  decree.  Having 
decreed  to  save,  he  decrees  to  sanctify-t  Arbi* 
imry  will  and  irresistible  power  are  the  only  fea* 
tUres  which  appear.  Effectual  callins^,  or  conver* 
^ion  from  sin  to  holiness  is  entirely  a  divine  work; 
the  creature  being  absolutely  passive  therein. J 
None  but  the  elect  are  effectually  called;  and  the 
elect  cannot  possibly  perish,  being  preserved  by 
the  infallible  decree  of  God.§  Thus,  by  irre* 
sistible  power,  the  sinner  is  at  once  converted, 
sanctified,  and  fina4ly  saved.  The  amount  of  the 
whoie  matter  is  simply  this— God  decreed  to  form 
a  number  of  machines,  and  to  endow  them  with 
the  capacity  o^  enjoying  pleasure,  and  sufifering 
pain— he  decreed  to  prepare  some  for  the  one 
^tate,  and  some  for  the  other — the  former  he 
forces  into  Heaven,  the  latter  he  thrusts  into  Hell; 
arbitrary  will  discriminating,  and  resistless  power 
Executing. 

*  Constltutian  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ui  the  United  States.  Con. 
fcssioii  of  Faith,  chap  iii.  sect.  3,  4,  5,  6,  7. 

f  *'  All  those  whom  God  halh  predesiinuted  unto  life,  and  those  only 
he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointtd  and  acceptetl  time,  effectually  to  call, 
hy  his  Almighty  power  deternaining-  them  to  that  whtrh  is  g-ood,  and 
effectually  druwihg  them  to  Jesus  Christ."  Constitution  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  the  United  States.     Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  x.  sect.  I. 

i  "This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not 
from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether  fassivb  therein." 
^id.  chap.  X.  sect  2. 

§  "This  pei^severance  of  the  saints  depends  not  upon  tlieir  own  free- 
will, bui  upon  the  immutability  of  the  decree  of  election."  /bid.  chap. 
jYii.  pect.  2. 


246  CALVINISM,  LET.  VIII. 

Very  different  is  the  language  of  those  who  hold 
the  Hnrtrine  of  a  conditional  predestination.    They 
connect  ihe  decree  of  God  with  his  prescience; 
supposing  him   to   determine   to  bless  where  he 
foresees  faith  and  obedience ;    to  destroy  where 
ho  foresees  unbelief  and  impenitence.   Thus  God, 
according  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  decrees  to 
create  a  number  of  free  agents,  and  to  deal  with 
them  according  to  the  moral  and  responsible  na- 
ture which  he  gives  them.    He  places  before  them 
good  and  evil ;   with  the  assistance  of  his  Holy 
Spirit)  which  is  sufficiently  given  to  all,  they  have 
the  power  of  choosing  the  one  and  rejecting  the 
Qther : — the  obedient  are  saved ;  the  disobedient 
perish.     Here  all  is  beneficent  and  lovely;   the 
rewards  which  are  bestowed  in  the  one  case,  and 
the  punishments  which  are  inflicted  in  the  other, 
being  consistent  alike  with  the  attributes  of  justice 
and  of  mercy.     Such  is  the  difference  between 
an  arbitrary  and  a  conditional  predestination.   Now 
the   seventeenth    Article   is   couched   in   general 
terms;  the  predestination   which   it   sets  forth  is 
not  declared  to  be  absolute ;  nay,  we  are  expressly 
required  to  "  receive  God's  promises  in  such  wise 
as  they  are  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  holy  Scrip- 
ture."    Will  any  one  deny  that  the  promise  of  fu- 
ture happiness  is  suspended  on  the  condition  of 
our  obedience  to  the  law  of  God  ?     Will  the  im- 
penitent be  saved  ?     Is  not  penitence,  then,  a  con- 
dition of  salvation  ?     The  predestination  of  God 
must  be  consistent  with  his  promises;  the  latter 
being  conditional,  the  former  must  be  conditional 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  247 

also.  Besides,  the  Articles  of  our  Church  must 
be  understood  in  a  sense  which  is  consistent  with 
her  Liturgy ;  and  the  Liturgy,  it  is  well  known, 
preaches  conditional  salvation  from  beginning  to 
end. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
the  seventeenth  Article  is  totally  silent  on  the  sub- 
ject of  reprobation  ;  of  course  the  doctrine  of  an 
eternal  decree  of  reprobation  forms  no  part  of  the 
faith  of  our  Church.  Now,  your  great  master, 
Calvin,  expressly  tells  us  that  election,  without  re- 
probation, cannot  stand.* 

But,  in  fact,  the  words,  predestination^  election^ 
as  used  in  the  seventeenth  Article,  are  to  be  taken 
in  a  collective^  not  in  an  individual  sense.f  The 
venerable  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
did  not  intend  to  lay  down  the  doctrine  of  an  eter- 
nal decree  of  God  fixing  the  future  condition  of 

*  Institutes,  lib.  iii.  cap.  23,  sect.  L 

\  Election^  purpose^  foreappointment,  predestinated,  never  relate,  ci- 
ther in  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  to  the  future  state  of  individuals; 
but  are  always  applicable  to  collective  bodies.  This  Whitby  hits  proved 
beyond  the  possibility  of  dispute.  The  Jews  are  consvnutly  denomi- 
nated the  elect  people ;  and  in  the  New  Testament  the  term  is  used  in 
a  general  way  to  signify  Christians,  persons  converted  to  the  faith  of 
the  Gospel.  The  Apostles  address  large  bodies  of  Christians,  and  style 
them  tlie  elect.  The  doctrine  of  ubsoUite  decrees,  fixmg  the  future 
and  eternal  state  of  individuals,  was  violently  opnosef!  when  originally 
advanced  by  St.  Augustine,  and  the  author  charg<d  with  heresy  ^^  h.  n 
Calvin  revived  the  doctrine,  it  met  with  the  most  dever mined  resis- 
tance, and  was  not  established,  without  a  severe  strujigle,  even  in  his 
©wn  territory  of  Geneva.  From  the  very  period  of  i's  origin,  it  has 
not  failed,  at  times,  to  perplex,  disturb,  and  even  convulse  the  Church. 
But  the  g.-eat  body  of  Christians  have  always  firmly  believed  in  the 
doctrine  of  universal  redemption,  and  the  doctrines  connected  with  it ; 
and,  of  course,  h,ave  been  anti-Calvinists. 


^48  CALVINISM.  VET.  VHI. 

individuals,  but  iimply  to  give  a,  geueral  descrip- 
tion of  the  sclicine  of  redemption  and  salvation 
througli  the  covenant  of  grace  in  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  impossible  to  avoid  being  struck  with  the^ 
dilTerence  between  the  language  of  the  Article,  re- 
lative to  God's  election,  and  that  em|)loyed  by 
Calvin  ;  the  tormer  appearing  to  refer  it  to  a  col- 
lective body,  while  the  latter  expressly  applies  it 
to  individual  persons.* 

Calvin  declares  that  the  unconditional  predesti- 
nation of  some  individuals  to  eternal  life,  is  neces- 
sarily connected  with  the  unconditional  reproba- 
tion of  others.  And,  indeed,  this  is  obviously  the 
case.  iN^ovv,  the  seventeenth  Article  says  not  a 
word  of  any  decree  of  reprobation.  If,  then,  it  had 
been  the  design  of  the  Article  to  declare  the  doc- 
trine of  a  predestination  of  individuals  to  eternal 
life,  the  corresponding  and  necessarily  connected 
doctrine  of  reprobation  w^ould  have  been  expressly 
introduced  This  is  a  further  very  probable  cir- 
cumstance to  show,  that  the  predestination  spoken 
of  in  the  Article  relates  to  the  covenant  of  grace 
in  Jesus  Christ;  for,  in  this  view  of  predcGlinalion, 
it  has  no  connexion  whatever  with  the  Calvinistig 
tenet  of  reprobation. 


•  The  divine  decree,  according  to  Calvin,  is  «*  de  unoquoque  ho- 
mine:t  while  the  English  Reformers  refer  it  to  those  "whom  God 
liath  chosen  in  Clirist  out  of  mankind."  Mclancthon  holds  the  same 
lan^niajre  with  the  Church  of  England  ;  considering  the  decree  of  tiod 
as  having  for  iU  object  a  Church  collected  from  among  tlie  human 
race. 

t  Institates*  Ub.  iu«  chap-  U  sect.  5'. 


LET.  Vnr.  CALVINISM.  249 

We  shall  be  confinned  in  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject if  we  direct  our  attention  for  fi  rnonicnt  to  the 
baptismal  service  of  the  Church  of  England.  In 
that  service  God  is  expressly  represented  as  favour- 
ably receiving  all  who  are  brought  to  him  in  bap- 
tism ;  it  is  declared,  in  so  many  words,  that  he  ad- 
mits them  into  the  number  of  his  children.  Now, 
as  the  Church  of  England  must  be  supposed  to 
speak  a  consistent  language  in  her  dilTerent  stand- 
ards, we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  discover  the  sense  in 
which  the  words,  election,  predestination,  are  in- 
tended to  be  used  by  her.  It  is  evident,  from  the 
baptismal  service,  that  she  considers  tiiem  as  re- 
ferring to  a  collective  body,  and  as  marking  the 
designation  of  that  body  to  spiritual  privileges  in 
this  world.  All  baptized  persons  are  taken  into 
covenant  with  God,  and  thus  elected. 

In  the  view  of  the  Church  of  England,  then,  the 
doctrine  of  election  is  connected  with  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  ;  and  the  baptismal  service  re- 
presents God  as  the  common  and  impartial  Father 
of  all,  electing  us  as  Christians,  and  finally  reject- 
ing those  only  who  forfeit  the  privileges  of  their 
election,  by  fliiling  to  perform  its  conditions. 

Thus,  interpreting  the  seventeenth  Article  by 
the  baptismal  service,  we  perceive  that  the  predes- 
tination spoken  of  in  the  former,  does  not  relate  to 
the  future  state  of  individuals,  but  marks  the  eter^ 
nal  purpose  of  God  to  place  fallen  man  under  a 
new  dispensation  of  mercy  through  Christ,  and  the 
election  of  a  Church  out  of  the  world  as  the  de- 
pository of  his  covenant  and  his  grace.   It  is,  at  all 

32 


25©  CALVINISM.  LET.  Vlli. 

events,  most  certain  that  the  Church  of  England 
rejects  the  idea  of  an  arbitrary*  selection  of  indi- 
uriduals  as  the  objects  of  divine  favour  ;  that  she 
regards  God  as  mercifully  embracing  all  who  are 
brought  to  him  in  baptism  ;t  w  ithdrawing,  never- 
theless,  from  them  his  favour  if  they  violate  their 
baptismal  engagements  ; — it  not  being  sutTicient 
that  we  be  made  in  baptism  the  children  of  God 
by  adoption  unless  we  be  daily  renewed  by  his 
Holv  Spirit,  and  so  be  rendered  meet,  by  sanctifi- 
cation  of  heart  and  holiness  of  life,  to  be  received, 
through  the  merits  of  Christ,  into  the  Kingdom  of 
Glory. 

But  the  limits  of  this  work  forbid  me  to  enlarge. t 

*  The  Editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine  undertakes  to  prove,  by  a 
minute  comparison  of  passages  from  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  that  they  hold  the 
same  language  relative  to  predestination.  But  he  leaves  out  that  sec- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  which  predestination  is  declared  to  be 
absolute  i  the  very  section  to  which,  more  than  to  any  other,  those  who 
deny  the  alleged  coincidence  of  the  Westminster  Confession  with  the 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  on  the  point  in  question,  are  in  the 
practice  of  appealing.     Surely  this  is  uncmdid  in  the  extreme. 

f  In  the  rubric  after  the  office  of  "  Public  Baptism  of  Infants'*  in  the 
Church  of  England,  it  is  declared  to  be  "  certain  by  God's  word  that 
children  which  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are 
saved."  How  totally  inconsistent  is  this  with  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  an  unconditional  appointment  of  some  adults  and  infants  to  eternal 
life,  and  of  others  to  eternal  death,  by  a  secret  decree  ! 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  Church  of  England  denies 
salvation  to  infants  that  die  without  baptism.  God  forbid  !  She  has  re- 
ference, in  the  rubric  in  question,  to  the  covenanted  mercy  of  God,  and 
is  declaring  what  she  considers  as  positively  revealed.  She  is  silent  on 
the  subject  of  unbaptized  infants,  because  she  supposes  Scripture  to  be 
silent.  She  leaves  such  infants,  therefore,  to  God's  free  but  uncove- 
nanted  mercy. 

%  Persons  who  wish  to  see  the  Church  of  England  completely  vindi- 
cated from  the  charge  of  Calvinism,  are  referred  to  tlic  writings  of  Bull, 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  251 

With  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  hy 
an  eternal  decree,  is  naturally  connected  that  of 
partial  redemptmi.  Accoi'dingly,  it  is  a  fundamen* 
tal  tenet  of  Calvinism,  that  Jesus  Christ  died  onljr 
for  the  elect.  Let  it  suffice  to  appeal  to  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith — "  Neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justi* 
fied,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect 
only."*  This  spirit  pervades  the  whole  work- 
It  is  for  the  elect  that  Christ  purchases  reconcilia* 
lion  ;t  to  them  alone  are  the  benefits  of  redemption 
commvnicated.X 

Now  mark  the  emphatic  language  of  our  public; 
formularies  !  "  The  offering  of  Christ  once  made, 
is  that  perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satis- 
faction, for  all  the  sins  of  the  ivhole  ivorld^  both  ori- 
ginal and  actual. "§    "  6oth  in  the  Old  and  New 

W-'lerland,  Winchester, Tucker,  Kipling,  Hey,  Daubeny,  Pearson;  and 
particularly  to  two  late  works.  Dr.  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  and 
Bishop  White's  "Comparison  of  the  Controversy  between  the  Calvinists 
and  the  Arminians,  with  the  Doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church."  The  production  of  Bishop  Whiteconsistsof  four  parts,  viz.  A 
Comparison  of  the  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  Controversy;  1st,  with  the 
Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  tlie  Romans ;  2d,  with  the  rest  of  Holy  Scripture ; 
3d,  with  the  Faith  of  the  Primitive  Church;  4th,  with  the  Doctrines  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  two  first  parts  have  been  pub* 
lished,  and  the  last  part  is  now  publishing  in  tlie  Churcliman's  Maga- 
zine. VVe  hope  the  learned  author  will  soon  give  the  entire  work  to  the 
world  in  a  separate  volume.  It  is,  certainly,  a  most  able  and  original 
performance 

The  question,  relative  to  the  Calvinism  of  our  Articles,  is  discussed 
with  great  perspicuity,  in  a  Sermon  delivered  at  the  Consecration  of 
Trinity  Church,  Newark,  in  the  year  1810,  by  Doctor,  now  Bishop  Ho- 
bart.  We  cannot  but  embrace  the  opportunity  of  recommending  this  Ser- 
mon to  all  who  wish  to  see  the  question  completely  settled  in  a  few  pages 

*  Chap.  iii.  sect.  6.  ■\  Chap.  viii.  sect.  .5. 

^  Chap.  viii.  sect.  6.  §  Article  :wxi. 


252  CALVINISM.  LETfVIII. 

Testament,  everla^^tinglife  is  offerefl  io  mnnhindhy 
Christ."*  In  the  Catechism,  Jesus  Christ  is  ex- 
pressly declare  1  to  have  "redeemed  all  mankind  f'^ 
in  (he  Co  nmnnion  Service  he  is  stvled  "  a  full, 
pcfect,  an(i  siilficient  s  irrifice,  oblation,  and  satis- 
faction for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.'''' 

It  vvonM  be  impossible  to  find  lano^uage  more 
directly  at  war  with  the  cardinal  principle  of  Cal- 
vinism. 

The  doctrines  of  iincon  htional  election  and  par- 
tial rede  nption,  naturally  draw  after  them  the  doc- 
trine of  irresistible  grace.  Accordingly,  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  declares  "  effectual 
calling,"  or  conversion  from  sin  to  holiness,  to 
be  enfirely  a  divine  work  ;  man  being  "  altos^ether 
passive  therein."!  The  call  is  vouchsafed  only  to 
the  elect,  who  are  determined  to  that  which  is 
good,  and  effectually  drawn  to  Jesus  Christ  by  Al- 
mighty power.J  The  sinner  is  not  only  converted^ 
but  preserved  by  irresistible  grace  :  "  He  can  nei- 
ther totally  nor  finally  fall  away,  but  shall  certainly 
persevere  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved. "§ 

Is  such  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  ?  God  for- 
bid !  The  creature  is  no  where  said  to  be  passive 
in  conversion  ;  grace  is  no  where  said  to  be  irre- 
sistible ; — on  the  contrary,  the  co-operation  of  man 
with  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  is  expressly  set 
forth.     God  is  represented  as  ''  working  with  us."(| 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  final  perseve- 
rance of  the  saints  is  entirely  unknown  to  the 

*  Article  vii.  f  Chap.  x.  sect.  2-  i  Chap,  x.  sect.  1. 

§  Chap.  xvii.  sect.  1.  ||  Article  x. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM. 


253 


/ 


Church  of  England.  "  After  we  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  we  may  depart  from  grace  given,  and 
tall  into  sin,  and  by  the  grace  of  God  we  7naii  arise 
again,  and  amend  our  lives."*  How  very  differ- 
ent is  this  from  the  language  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  !  The  elect  cannot  finally  fall 
away — they  shall  certainly  persevere,  and  be  eter- 
nally saved.  To  say  that  we  may  arise,  is  to  admit 
that  we  may  not  arise ; — it  is  a  sort  of  language  that 
could  not  possibly  have  been  used  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance.f 

The  doctrine  of  total  depravity  naturally  goes 
along  with  that  of  personal  election  and  irresisti- 
ble grace.  In  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  man  is,  accordingly,  described  as  "  ivholly 

*  Article  xvi. 

f  There  is  a  passag-e  in  the  Burial  Servlre  vvMrli  slmu-s  very  clearly 
that  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance  is  not  held  by  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land :  "  Suffer  us  not,  at  our  last  hour,  for  any  pains  of  death  to  fall  from 
thee." — The  pretence  that  this  passage  alludes  to  a  possible  fall  from  a 
fictitious  faith  is,  certainly,  unworthy  of  an  answer. 

It  would  be  easy  to  trace  the  sentiment,  contained  in  the  passage  just 
cited,  through  the  whole  History  of  the  English  Reformation.  In  the 
Bishops*  Book,  for  example,  put  out  in  the  reign  of  Henry  Mil.  the 
following  sentence  occurs — "  Keep  us  from  the  enticements  of  the  De- 
vil, that  he,  by  no  suggestions,  bring  us  from  the  right  faith,  neither 
cause  us  to  fall  into  desperation,  now,  nor  on  the  point  of  death."  p.  91. 
In  the  King's  Book,  published  also  in  the  reign  of  Henry,  the  same  idea 
is  presented  : — "  In  the  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  we  may  con- 
stantly believe  the  works  of  God  in  them  to  our  present  comfort,  and 
application  of  his  grace  and  favour,  with  assurance  also,  that  he  will 
not.  fail  us  if  we  fall  not  from  him."^  There  is  an  admission  in  Cran- 
mer's  Catechism,  of  the  possibility  of  perishing  in  the /j/>7/r  ofajliction 
and  death,    p.  210.     See  Laurence* s  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  445,  446. 

I  need  not  say  how  opposite  all  this  is  to  the  doctrine  of  the  infallible 
perseverance  of  the  saints. 

t  Article  of  Faith. 


254  Calvinism.  let.  vin. 

defiled  in  all  the  faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and 
body  ;"*  as  "  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is 
good  ;"t  as  "  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
ma'lc  opposite  to  all  good,  and  ivhoUij  inclined 
to  all  evil."t 

There  is  no  such  language  as  this  in  the  standr 
ardsof  the  Church  of  England; — on  the  contrary, 
she  must  be  considered  as  expressly  disclaiming, 
in  her  ninlh  Article,  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity ; 
for  in  that  article  she  describes  fallen  man  as 
"  very  far^^^  not  as  wholly  "  gone  from  original 
righteousness.'^^ 


*  Chap.  vi.  2.  |  Chap.  ix.  3.  *  Chap.  vi.  4. 

5  The  tendency  of  the  human  mind  to  pass  from  one  extreme  to  an- 
other, strikingly  appears  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  original  sin. 
The  Pelag-ians  maintained  that  man  comes  into  the  world  with  a  nature 
as  pure  as  that  of  A.dam  before  his  fall,  and  that  he  is,  therefore,  ca- 
pable, by  his  uwii  uuumoiatcJ  |jo-»»-ct3,  of  working'  out  his  salvation. 
The  Romish  schoolmen  represented  the  corruption  of  our  nature,  in- 
duced by  the  fall,  as  a  mere  bodily  taint ;  the  soul  only  losing  an 
adventitious  ornament,  which  it  might  lose  without  prejudice  to  its 
native  powers.  In  consequence  of  this,  they  held  that  the  mere  natu- 
ral man,  without  any  divme  assistance,  is  capable  of  preparing  him- 
self for  ^Tace,  and  thus  of  meriting  it ;  not  so,  indeed,  as  to  lay  God 
under  a  strict  obligation  oi  justice  to  bestow  it,  but  at  least  so  far  as 
to  render  it  fit  and  proper  that  it  should  be  bestowed,  and  that  God 
could  not  withhold  it  consistently  with  his  attributes.  The  schoolmen 
went  on  to  assert,  that  the  mere  natural  man,  having  prepared  himself 
for  grace  so  as  infallibly  to  receive  it,  can  then  attain,  by  the  assistance 
of  the  grace  thus  secured  to  him  by  his  own  unaided  efforts,  to  the 
higlier  merit  of  condii^mty ;  which  entitles  him  to  the  joys  of  Heaven. 
Thus  did  the  scholastics  completely  put  out  of  their  system  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  by  the  sole  merits  of  Christ,  and  of  sanctification  by 
the  Holy  Spirit;  making  man,  in  reality,  his  own  sanctifier,  and  his 
own  saviour.  This  was,  perhaps,  the  worst  error  of  the  Romish  Church; 
poisoning  the  Christian  doctrine  and  practice,  at  once,  in  their  very 
fountain  ;  not  only  superseding  the  vital  principle  of  the  (iospel  scheme 
of  salvation,  but  laying  tlie  foundatian  of  that  infamous  traffic  in  in- 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  255 

What  now  sliall  we  think  of  your  very  peremp- 
tory assertion  ? — "  The  Articles  of  the  Church  of 

dulgences,  by  which  such  ridicule  and  shumc  were  brought  upon 
the  Cliristian  name. 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  some  of  the  Reformers,  in  their 
abhorrence  of  a  doctrine  so  pernicious  and  detestabk-,  should  pass  to 
the  contrary  extreme.  Calvin  set  up  the  doctrine  of  tetal  depravity  : 
alleging-  tliat  the  divine  image,  in  which  man  was  created,  was  utterly 
defaced  by  the  fall;  that  he  is  now  -wholly  averse  from  all  good,  and 
■wholly  inclined  to  all  evil.  Thus,  according  to  Calvin,  the  human 
race  became,  in  consequence  of  the  fall,  an  vmningled  mass  of  corrup- 
tion ;  and  the  entire  change  of  the  sinner  from  a  state  of  total  depravity 
to  ii  state  of  sanctificalion  and  favour  before  Cod,  is  tlie  result,  simply 
and  exclusively,  of  irresistible  grace  ;  man  being  absolutely  passive 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  process. 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  passages  to  this  effect  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Calvin  ;  but  it  cannot  be  necessary.  1  will  content  myself  with 
introducing  one  or  two  sentences  in  which  the  doctrine  of  human  co-ope- 
ration is  indignantly  rejected,  and  the  irresistibility  of  the  divine  election 
unequivocally  set  forth — "  Duo  autem  errores  hic  cavendi  sunt:  quia 
noniiulli  co-operarium  Deo  faciunt  hominem,  ut  suffragio  suo  ratam 
electionem  faciat:  ita  secundum  eos  voluntas  hominis  superior  est 
Dei  consilio."*  •*  An  assertion,"  says  Mr.  Munt,  "  which  runs  counter 
to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Bible  ;  annulling  its  commands  and  exhorta- 
tions ;  its  promises  and  threats ;  all  its  commendations  of  the  good, 
and  all  its  judgments  on  the  wicked."f 

In  the  third  chapter  of  his  second  book,  Calvin  not  only  asserts  the 
doctrine  of  irresistible  grace,  but  accompanies  the  assertion  with  a 
censure  of  the  language  held  on  the  subject  by  all  the  Christian  wri- 
ters that  flourished  b«fore  the  time  of  Austin.  He  condemns,  particu- 
larly, the  declaration  of  Chrysostom,  that  when  God  draws  us,  it  is 
with  our  coilsent  ng  will. — **  lllud  toties  a  Chrysostomo  repetitum,  re- 
pudiari  necesse  est,  quem  trahit,  volentem  trahit.'* 

Calvin  represents  some  infants  is  carrying  with  them  their  damna- 
tion from  their  mothers'  womb;  and,  as  to  adults,  he  scruples  not  \.o  say 
that  all  but  the  elect  are  uninterruptedly  inclined  to  all  manner  of  wick- 
edness, and  would  be  always  positively  engaged  in  the  perpetration  of 
horrible  crimes,  if  God  did  not,  through  the  influence  of  .-ome  selfith 
motive,  restrain  them. — "  The  Lord  cures  those  diseases  (meaning 
vicious  propensities)  in  his  elect.  In  others,  with  a  bridle  thrown 
•ver,  he  restrains  them,  only  lest  they  should  boil  over ;  so  far  forth 

*  lustitutes,  lib.  iii.  cap.  ii,  s«ct.  3.  t  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  273. 


256  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

England  are  undoubtedly  Calvinistic — this  is  prov- 
ed by  the  bare  inspection  of  them."* 

Is  it  proved  by  a  bare  inspection  of  the  thirty- 

as  he  sees  it  to  be  expedient  for  the  conservation  of  all  thing's.  Hence 
some  are  restrained  by  shafne  ;  some  by  fear  of  the  laws.  Thus  God, 
by  his  providence,  bridles  the  perversity  of  nature,  but  does  not 
cleanse  wilhin/'f 

Here,  now,  we  have  the  two  extremes — the  system  of  Pelagius  and 
the  Romish  schoolmen,  on  the  one  side — and  that  of  Jolm  Calvin  on  the 
other. 

It  is  impossible,  on  this  subject,  too  much  to  admire  the  moderation 
and  wisdom  of  the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  Eing-land.  The  Pela- 
gian error  they  entirely  avoided,  by  dtclaring-  original  sin  to  be  the 
fault  or  corruption  of  our  nature;  that  we  are  born  into  the  world  with 
it;  ynd  that  from  this  state  of  corruption  we  are  incapable  of  deliver- 
iog  ourselves  by  our  own  unassisted  efforts.  In  the  same  way  they 
guarded  against  the  Romish  doctrine  of  merit;  maintaining  that  the 
services  of  man  are  all  imperfect;  that  after  his  best  performances,  he 
is  an  unprofitable  servant,  and  can  never  set  up  any  claim  of  riglit,  iij 
reference  either  to  grace  or  salvation  ;  and  that  lie  must  be  content  to 
receive  pardon  and  eternal  life,  not  as  a  reward  due  to  him,  but  as 
the  fi'cte.  .y^ift  of  God's  mercy,  through  the  great  atonement.  The  corrup- 
tion induced  by  the  fall,  the  English  Reformers,  in  opposition  to  the 
schoolmen,  lield  to  be  no  innocuous  quality,  but  a  real  taint,  extend- 
ing not  merely  to  the  body,  but  to  the  soul ;  weakening  and  perverting, 
though  not  totally  depraving'  its  diflferent  faculties  and  affections.  They 
stopped  short  of  the  doctrine  of  Calvin,  that  human  nature,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  fall,  became  an  entire  mass  of  corruption  and  damnation, 
and  was  thus  doomed,  with  the  exception  of  an  elect  number,  to  be 
converted  by  irresistible  grace,  to  inevitable  perdition  ;  maintaining 
that  man  is  very  far,  not  totally  gone  from  oi-iginal  righteousness;  that 
lie  is  not  passive  in  conversion,  but  co-operates  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  every  part  of  the  religious  life;  and  that  i.od,  instead  of  converting 
an  elect  member  by  an  exertion  of  omnipotent  strength,  imparts  so  much 
assistance  to  every  man,  as  to  enable  every  man  to  lay  hold  on  eternal 
life. 
•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  330. 

t  Institutes,  book  ii.  chap.  3,  sect.  3.  The  passage  is  here  given  as  ren- 
dered \y  liisljop  \\'liite,  in  lii=?  pxamination  (if  "  the  rontroversy  between  the 
CiiUinists  and  Anninians ;"— a  work  not  more  remarkiihle  for  the  <  luistian  spirit 
in  vhicli  it  is  sviiuen,  than  for  the  deplli  and  aculonoss  uith  which  every  parf 
^f  the  subject  is  discussed.    See  Churchman's  J\iagaxine,  v.  viii.  p.  34. 


lET.  Vni.  CALVINISM*  257 

first  Article,  that  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect  ? 
"  None  are  redeemed  by  Christ  l>ut  the  elect  onlyy* 
"  The  olTering  of  Christ  is  a  perfect  redemption, 
propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the 
ivhole  world^  both  original  and  actual."t  Not  one 
of  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism  is  to  be  found  in 
the  formularies  of  our  Church.  Do  you  meet 
there  with  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  ?  "  Man 
is  very  far^''  not  totally  "  gone  from  original  right- 
eousness." Is  it  asserted  that  the  saints  cannot 
possibly  fall  from  grace?  "  VVewiay  fall  from  grace, 
and  we  maij  rise  again.''  Is  grace  ever  declared 
to  be  irresistible,  or  the  creature  ever  represented 
as  passive  in  conversion  ?  The  tenth  Article  ex- 
pressly speaks  of  the  grace  of  God  as  working  icith 
us; — of  course  we  are  not  passive.!     Besides,  in 


•  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  f  Article  xxxl. 

t  It  has  been  observed  that  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Ent^land 
frequently  cannot  be  correctly  understood  without  referring  to  those 
errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  which  they  were  intended  to  be  op- 
posed. This  remark  will  particularly  apply  to  the  tenth  Article,  entitled 
**  of  Free  Will."  "  The  condition  of  man,  after  the  fall  of  Adam,  i» 
such,  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his  owo  natural 
stren,^th  and  g-ood  works,  to  faith  and  callin^^  upon  God.  Wherefore, 
we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works,  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God, 
without  the  g-race  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have 
a  good  will,  and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will " 

This  Article,  even  when  strictly  construed,  goes  no  further  than  to 
assert  the  great  principle,  that  man  cannot  act,  in  any  part  of  the  reli- 
gious life,  independently  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  it  by  no  means  repre- 
sents him  as  the  passive  instrument,  at  any  period,  of  irresistible 
grace.  Such  is  the  fair  interpretation  of  the  words,  considered  ia 
themselves;  but  when  we  recollect  the  Romish  error  oi  congruous 
merit,  we  see,  with  clearness,  the  object  which  the  English  Ktformers 
had  in  view.  The  sclioolmcn  contended  that  man,  by  the  exercise  of 
his  7iative  and  unassisted  po~^'ers,  can  prepare  himself  for  grace ;  per- 
forming works  pleasant  and  acceptable  tc*  God,  and  so  meriting  grace 

33 


258  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIll. 

the  prayers,  we  implore  the  continual  help,  not 
the  irresistible  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  How 
different    is   this   from   the    Calvinislic   doctrine, 


aft  his  hands.     Upon  this  doctrine  the  English  Reformers  mtended  to 
put  a  decided  n€g;itive.     "  Man  cannot  turn  and  prepare  hin^self,  by 
His  own  natural  strength."     "  We  have   no  power  to  do  good  works 
jyleasant  and  acceptable   to  God,  without  the  grace  of  Cod  by  Christ 
preventing  (going  before)  ns."     The   scholastics  made  man  his  own 
sanctifier.     By  his  natural  strength,  according  to  them,  he  can  merit 
ffracc,  so  that  God  cannot,  consistently  with  his  attributes,  witljholJ  it; 
K\d  then,  with  the  help  of  the  grace  thus  infallibly  secured  to  him  by 
his  own  unaided  powers,  he  can  fit  himself  for  Heaven.     The  English 
l^eformers  went  back  to  the  pure  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  the  pri~ 
mitive  Church ;  representing  the  religious  life,  in  every  part,  as  the 
joint  work  of  man  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  equal  opposition  to  the 
creed  of  the  schooFiSfen,  who  derogated  from  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  that  of  the  Calvinists,  who  ascribed  to 
him  the  sole  agency,  on  the  other. 

There  is,  in  the  article  under  consideration,  a  distinction  of  grace 
into  preventing  and  co-operating.  "  We  have  no  power  to  do  good  works 
pleasant  iind  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ 
preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good  will,  and  loorking  -with  ut  when 
we  have  that  good  will."  rhe  article  declares  tluit  we  cannot  turn  to 
God  without  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us;  in  other 
words,  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  must  precede  the  act,  and 
contribute  to  it  It  is  not  said  that  the  act  xa  the  sole  and  undivided 
work  of  the  STpirit;  the  opposite  of  this,  indeed,  is  necessarily  implied 
bv  the  whole  language  of  the  article.  W^e  cannot  turn  to  God  without 
fee  grace  of  Christ; — of  course,  with  that  grace  we  can  turn  to  him. 
This,  surely,  supposes  man  to  exert  his  own  powers,  and  not  to  be 
the  mere  passive  subject  of  a  foreign  influence.  "  And  working  with 
us  when  we  have  that  good  will."  The  grace  of  Gdd  by  Christ,  not 
only  assists  in  giving  us  a  good  v/ill,  but  must  continue  afterwards 
lo  co-operate  with  us. 

Now,  this  whole  distinction  of  preventing  and  co-operating  grace, 
was  decidedly  rejected  by  Calvin;*  and  as  the  distinction  is  made 
not  only  in  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  also  in  her  Li- 
turgy, we  see  how  little  ground  there  is  for  the  supposition,  that  Cran- 
mer  and  his  i\  ilow  labourers  proposed  Calvin  as  their  guide  in  the 
work  of  Reformation. 

•  Sec  Irstitalcs,  lib.  ii.  cap.  C 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  259 

that  ill  conversion  man  is  alisolntel)^  passive  ;  and 
that  even  after  conversion,  his  perseverance  in 
grace  depends,  not  upon  his  own  will,  but  upon 
the  immutability  of  the  decree  of  election,  and 
the  irresistible  power  of  God!*  Where  is  it  u^ 
eerted  in  our  standards,  that  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  imputed  to  believers,  or  that  the  sio 
of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity  ?  There  i^ 
ttot  a  trace  of  either  of  these  doctrines  in  our  Arti^ 
cles,  our  Homilies,  or  our  Prayers.  The  terrible 
decree  of  reprobation,  which  forms  so  prominer^ 
a  feature  in  the  writings  of  Calvin,  and  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  is  altogether 
unknown  to  our  Church ;  and  the  predestinatioi(i 
of  which  the  seventeenth  Article  treats,  is  nojt 
declared  to  be  arbitrary  ; — nay,  the  last  clause,  in- 
structing us  to  receive  God's  promises  as  they 
are  generally  set  forth  in  Holy  Scripture,  obligeB 
us  to  consider  predestination,  if  it  must  be  limited 
to  an  individual  sense,  as  founded  on  prescience  ; 
a  principle  totally  and  unequivocally  disdain jed 
by  Calvin,  and  by  all  those  societies  which  have 
adopted  his  ideas.  But,  in  truth,  the  seventeenth 
Article  declares  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  tp 
place  fallen  man  under  a  dispensation  of  mercy 
through  a  Redeemer;  and  marks  the  election  of  a 
body  of  men  to  spiritual  privileges,  not  that  of  in- 
dividuals to  eternal  life. 

I  repeat  it,  not  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  Cal- 
vinism is  sanctioned  by  the  formularies  of  our 

*  Westminster  Confe«sion  of  Faiib,  chap.  xvii.  sect,  1,  2. 


260  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII, 

Church ;  so  far  from  it,  they  are  all,  either  ex- 
pressly or  impliedly,  disclaimed. 

You  proceed,  with  great  positiveness,  to  assert, 
that  the  Reformers,  who  drew  up  the  Articles  of 
the  Church  of  England,  were  known  to  entertain 
Calvinistic  opinions.*  Now,  of  the  pages  which 
you  give  to  the  subject,  there  is  but  a  single  sen- 
tence that  professes  to  state  the  sentiments  of  the 
Reformers  ;  the  remainder  being  entirely  taken  up 
in  detailing  circumstances  of  a  subordinate  nature. 
How  very  like  to  the  course  which  you  pursued  in 
the  attempt  to  prove  the  English  Reformers  Pres- 
byterians ;  when  you  deliberately  passed  by  the 
decisive  and  authentic  evidence,  and  perplexed 
your  people  with  a  variety  of  coUateril  and  extrin- 
sic matter !  Not  a  single  passage  have  you  pro- 
duced from  the  writings  of  the  Reformers;  al- 
though they  left  behind  them  works  which  speak, 
on  the  point  in  question,  a  very  unequivocal  lan- 
guage. 

The  limits,  which  I  have  prescribed  to  myself, 
will  not  permit  me  to  enter  fully  into  this  subject: 
I  hope  to  be  able,  in  a  few  pages,  however,  to  pre- 
sent evidence  which  will  convince  every  dispas- 
sionate reader,  that  you  have  done  great  injustice 
to  I  he  venerable  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. 

The  Reformation  in  England  was  a  progressive 
I'Fork  ;  ii  commenced  under  Henry  VIll.  and  waS 

♦  Continiation  of  Letters,  p.  330- 


LET.  VIII. 


CALVINISM.  261 


compietcd  in  the  reign  of  his  successor,  Edward 
VI.  Tlien  came  the  fiery  persecution  under  Mary, 
when  Popery  was  again  introduced ;  but  in  the 
re-settlement,  under  Elizabeth,  the  Articles  drawn 
up  by  Cranmer  and  Ridley,*  were  adopted  with- 
out any  alterations,  as  far  as  Calvinism  is  con- 
cerned, that  are  at  all  material.f  If,  then,  private 
opinion  is  to  be  brought  in  illustration  of  the  sense 
of  the  Articles,  it  is  evident  that  we  are  to  ap- 
peal to  the  sentiments  of  the  Reformers  under 
Edward,  by  whom  the  Articles  were  originally 
digested  and  prepared.  This  course,  however, 
you  studiously  decline,  and  present  us  with  a  num- 
ber of  facts  of  a  very  posterior  date.  Permit  me 
to  lead  you  for  a  few  moments  to  the  true  sub- 
ject of  discussion.  Did  the  original  Reformers  of 
the  Church  of  England,  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Lati- 
mer, Hooper,  entertain  those  peculiar  tenets  which 
constitute  what  is  now  termed  the  system  of  Cal- 
yinism  ?     The  negative  of  this  question  may  be 

*  Cranmer,  it  would  seem,  drew  up  the  Articles,  but  with  the  advice 
and  assistance  of  Ridley.     Fox's  Mariyrolog-y,  p.  1317,  1704. 

I  In  the  seventeenth  Article,  the  following  alterations  were  made — 
"  Whom  he  hath  chosen  [in  Christ]  out  of  mankind."  "  They  are 
made  sons  of  [God  by]  adoption."  "  They  are  made  like  the  ima^e  of 
the  [his]  only  begotten  [Son]  Jesus  Christ."  The  words  in  brackets 
were  added  in  the  re -settlement,  under  Elizabeth.  The  last  clause,  as 
drawn  up  under  Edward,  ran  thus — "  Furthermore,  [though  the  de- 
crees of  predestination  be  unknown  to  us,  yet]  we  must  receive  God's 
promises  in  such  wise  as  they  be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  Holy  Scrips 
ture."  At  the  re-settlement,  under  Elizabeth,  the  words  in  brackets 
were  omitted.  All  these  alterations  are  entirely  immaterial ;  they  ap- 
pear to  have  been  dictated  by  a  wish  to  keep,  on  this  mysterious  subject, 
as  near  as  possible  to  the  very  letter  of  Scripture.  Set  Winchester  on 
the  seventeenth  Article,  p.  18,  19,  20. 


262  CALVINISM.  LET.  Vlll. 

established  by  a  force  of  evidence  which  no  can- 
did mind  can  resist. 

1.  If  the  English  Reformers  were  Calvinists, 
would  they  have  drawn  up  such  a  set  of  Articles? 
What  I  men  believins;  that  Christ  died  to  redeem 
the  elect  oaly^  expressly  assert  that  his  death  was 
a  "  perfect  redemption  for  all  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world  f"*^  What!  Calvinists  draw  up  Articles 
in  which  their  fundamental  tenet  of  reprobation  is 
whoib'  onitted,  and  in  which  predestination  is 
not  applied  to  individual  destiny;  or,  if  so  applied, 
is  not  declared  to  be  independent  of  all  foresight 
of  the  qualifications  possessed  by  the  creature  ? 
What!  Calvinists  fail  to  set  forth  their  darling 
doctrines  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  his 
posterity,  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  believers,  or  of  the  infallible  perseverance 
of  the  saints  ?  What !  Calvinists  tell  us  that  man 
is  not  totally  drpraved  by  nature,  ''  but  only  very 
far  gone  from  original  righteousness ;"  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  ivorks  with  ns,  and  is  our  continual 
help^  not  acting  irresistibly  upon  the  mind,  and 
effectually  drawing  us  by  Almighty  power?  Cal- 
vinists draw  up  a  set  of  Articles  in  which  not 
one  of  their  peculiar  principles  is  asserted,  and 
in  which  some  of  those  principles  are  expressly 
disclaimed? 

2.  Look  again  at  the  two  books  of  Homilies, 
published  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  and  of 
Elizabeth,  and  expressly  designed  to  form  the 
faith  both  of  the  clergy  and  the  people !  Surely, 
if  Calvinists  were  the  authors  of  these  books,  wc 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  565 

may  expect  to  find  in  them  the  great  principles  of 
Calvinistic  divinity.  But,  "  not  one  of  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  Calvinism  is  mentioned  in  either  of 
the  two  books  of  Homilies.  The  word  predes- 
tination does  not  occur  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  Homilies.  The  word  election  occurs 
only  once,  and  then  it  is  not  used  in  the  Calvinistic 
sense.  The  word  reprobation  docs  not  occur  at 
all.  Nothing  is  said  of  absolute  decrees,  partial 
redemption,  perseverance,  or  irresistible  grace."* 

Would  Calvin  have  drawn  up  a  set  of  discourses, 
in  onler  to  form  the  faith  of  clergy  and  people, 
and  have  left  the  great  principles  of  his  system 
undefended,  and  even  unnoticed?  Would  the 
Westminster  Divines?  No — If  the  English  Re- 
formers had  been  Calvinists,  thev  would  have 
filled  the  Homilies  with  unconditional  election, 
partial  redemption,  irresistible  grace,  and  final 
perseverance.  What!  Calvinists  frame  a  set  'of 
discourses  for  the  purpose  of  inculcating  the  true 
scriptural  doctrine,  and  entirely  omit  those  car- 
dinal principles  without  which  "  the  whole  plan 
of  salvation  is  nothing  better  than  a  gloomy  sys- 
tem of  possibilities  and  peradventures ;  nearly, 
if  not  quite  as  likely  to  land  the  believer  in  the 
abyss  of  the  damned,  as  in  the  paradise  of  God."t 

But  still  further — The  Homilies  are  in  many 
places  as  decidedly  anti-Calvinistic  as  language 
can  make  them.  I  will  detain  you  with  only  a 
few  passages  on  redemption;  the  universality  of 

•  Bishop  of  Lincoln's  Charge  to  his  Clergy,  in  I8O0. 
f  Continuation  of  Letters,  p,  339. 


264  CALVINISM.  LET.  V211. 

-which  is  thus  unequivocally  declared — "  So  well 
pleased  is  the  Father,  Almighty  God,  with  Christ 
his  Son,  that  for  his  sake  he  favoured  us,  and  will 
deny  us  nothing.  So  pleasant  and  acceptable 
was  this  sacrifice  of  his  Son's  death,  which  he  so 
evidently  and  innocently  suffered,  that  we  should 
take  it  for  the  only  and  full  amends  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world*  "  This  deliverance  cr  redemp- 
tion  was  not  partial,  intended  only  for  a  few,  but 
general  and  universal  for  all  mankind.^^  "  The 
promise  and  covenant  of  God  made  unto  Abraham 
and  his  posterity,  was  to  deliver  mankind  from  the 
bitter  curse  of  the  law."  "  The  promised  Mes- 
siah was  to  make  perfect  satisfaction  by  his  death 
for  the  sins  of  all  people.'i  "  Now,  he  gave  us 
not  an  angel,  but  his  Son.  But  to  whom  did  he 
give  him?  He  gave  him  to  the  whole  world;  that 
is  to  say,  to  Adam  and  all  that  should  come  after 

him.n 

You  speak  in  the  highest  terms  of  the  Reformers 
of  the  Church  of  England;  but  their  conduct 
in  prescribing  such  books  of  Homilies  amounted, 
if  your  view  of  Scripture  be  correct,  to  little  less 
than  apostacy  from  the  faith. 

3.  But  let  us  proceed  to  the  evidence  which  is 
to  be  derived  on  this  subject  from  the  private 
writings  of  the  English  Reformers. 

See  the  strong  language  which  Cranmer  uses 
in  his  answer  to  Gardiner !  "  By  his  own  oblation 
he   satisfied   the   Father  for  all  men's  sins^   and 

•  Homily  for  Good  Friday.  t  Homily  for  the  Nativity.  ^  Homily 
of  the  Pasaion- 


LET.  Vnr.  CALVINISM.  265 

reconciled  mankind  into  his  grace  and  favour." 
"  And  as  he,  dying  once,  was  olFcred  for  a//,  so, 
as  much  as  pertained  to  him,  he  took  all  rnen^s 
sins  unto  himself"*  "  What  ought  to  be  more 
certain  and  known  to  all  Christian  people,  than 
that  Christ  died  once,  and  but  once,  for  the  re- 
demption of  the  worldy\ 

The  following  passage  from  the  book,  entitled, 
"  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Chris- 
tian Man,"  will  show  us  the  earliest  opinions 
of  Cranmer  on  the  subject  under  consideration. 
*'  Although  our  Saviour  Christe  hath  offered  hym- 
selfe  upon  the  crosse,  a  sufficient  redemption  and 
satisfaction  for  the  synnes  of  all  the  world,  and  hath 
made  hymselfe  an  open  way  and  entre  unto  God 
the  Father  for  all  mankind^  yet  none  shall  have  the 
effect  of  the  benefyte  of  our  Saviour  Christe,  and 
enjoye  everlasting  salvation  by  him,  but  they  that 
take  such  ways  to  atteyn  the  same,  as  he  hath 
taught  and  appointed  by  his  holy  word."!  In 
these  sentiments  the  venerable  Primate  persevered 
to  the  end  of  his  course — "  Christe  made  a  sacrifice 
and  oblation  upon  the  crosse,  which  was  a  full  re- 
demption and  propitiation  for  the  synnes  of  the 
whole  worW^  And  in  his  final  prayer  at  the 
stake,  he  thus  expresses  himself — "  O  God  the 
Son,  thou  wast  not  made  man,  this  great  mystery 
was  not  wrought  for  few  or  small  offences,  nor 

'=  Answer  to  Gardiner,  p.  372.  f  Ibid.  p.  393. 

T  Winchester  on  the  seventeenth  Article,  p.  35. 
§  Cranmer  on  the  Sacrament.     Preface,  London,  15^0.    Se»  Winchc9- 
tev  on  tbf  seventeenth  Article,  p.  >3. 

34 


266  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII.. 

thou  didst  not  give  thy  Son  unto  death,  O  God  the 
Father,  for  our  little  and  small  synnes  only,  but 
for  all  the  greatest  synnes  of  the  worW* 

Bishop  Ridley,  who,  after  Cranmer,  had  most 
influence  in  reforming  and  settling  the  Church  of 
England,  uses,  in  the  preface  to  his  disputation  at 
Oxford,  a  little  before  his  martyrdom,  the  follow- 
ing unequivocal  language — "  Ex  epistola  ad  He- 
brseos  patit  unicam  esse  oblationem  et  unicum  vere 
vivificum  sacrificium,  oblatum  in  ara  crucis,  qui 
fuit,  est  et  erit  in  perpetuum  propitiatio  pro  pec- 
catis  totius  mundi."t 

Bishops  Hooper  and  Latimer  were  next  in  influ- 
ence to  Cranmer  and  Ridley  in  the  English  Re- 
formation.    Mark  the  following  strong  language  of 
Bishop  Hooper,  in  the  preface  to  his  Declaration 
of  the  Ten  Commandments  !     "  As  far  extendeth 
the  virtue  and  strength  of  God's  promise  to  save 
men,  as  the  rigour  and  justice  of  the  law  for  sin  to 
damn  men ;  for  as  by  the  sin  and  off*ence  of  one 
man,   death  was  extended,  and  made   common 
unto  all  men  unto  condemnation,  as  St.  Paul  saith, 
(Rom.  V.)  so  by  the  justice  of  one  is  derived  life 
unto  all  men  unto  justification."     "  Cain  was  no 
mo^e   excluded,  till  he  excluded   himself,    than 
Abel ;  Saul  than  David;  Judas  than  Peter ;  Esau 
than  Jacob." 

The  language  of  the  venerable  Latimer  is  not 
less  decisive.  "  The  promises  of  Christ  our  Sa- 
viour are  general:  wherefore  then  should  any  man 

'   Wincbcslcr  on  the  seventeenth  Article,  p.  39.        f  Ibid.  p.  39 


£:ET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  267 

despair,  or  shut  himself  out  from  the  promises  of 
Christ,  which  be  general^  and  pertain  to  the  whole 
world.  Christ  shed  as  much  blood  for  Judas  as 
he  did  for  Peter :  Peter  believed  it,  and  therefore 
was  saved.  Judas  did  not  believe,  and  therefore 
he  was  condemned;  the  fault  being  in  him  only, 
find  in  nobody  else."^ 

I  have  thus  presented  you  with  a  few  passages 
from  the  writings  of  the  Reformers  of  the  Church 
of  Efigiand,  which  speak  a  decidedly  anti-Calvin- 
istic  language.  It  would  be  easy  to  quote  from 
Ih^m  much  more  extensively,  but  it  cannot  be 
necessary  to  do  so ;  beside  that  it  would  not  be 
consistent  with  the  limits  of  this  work.  I  have 
confined  myself,  too,  to  the  single  point  of  the 
universality  of  redemption;  although  passages 
equally  express  might  have  been  produced  on 
other  points  of  the  controversy.f 

*  Sermon  on  the  third  Sunday  after  Epiphany. 

\  Permit  me  to  trespass  here  one  moment  longer  on  your  patience 
in  a  brief  comparison  of  the  sentiments  of  Hooper  and  Latimer,  with 
those  of  Calvin  and  Gomarus  on  the  subject  of  the  irresistibility  of 
grace. 

Calvin  severely  censures  St.  Chrysostora  for  saying"  that  God  draws 
us  with  a  consenting  will. — "  Quem  trahit,  volentem  trahit,  quo  insi- 
nuat  Dominum  porrecta  tan  turn  manu  expectare  an  suo  auxilio  juvari 
nobis  adlubescat."t  Gomarus  expressly  puts  the  question  *'  whether 
the  grace  of  God  be  given  in  an  irresistible  manner ;  that  is  to  say, 
with  such  an  efficacious  operation,  that  the  will  of  him  who  is  to  be 
regenerated,  hath  not  the  power  to  make  resistance  r"  To  which  \\i^. 
answers — "  I  believe  and  profess  it  to  be  so."|) 

How  different  is  the  language  of  Bishop  Hooper!  "  Many  under- 
stand these  words — no  man  coineth  to  mct  except  mv  Father  dra-.v  him — ; 

^  Institutes,  lib.  ii.  cap.  3. 
!  f>^e  Heyllu's  Quinquarticiilar  Histoiy,  part  ii.  chap.  10,  sec ^  ', 


268  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIIK 

The  attempts  to  make  Calvinists  of  the  English 
Reformers,  derive  all  their  plausibility  from  ver- 
bal ambiguities.  These  Reformers  sometimes 
use  the  words,  electa  predestinate; — of  course  they 
were  Calvinists.  The  question  between  Calvin- 
ists and  anti-Calvinists,  let  it  be  repeated,  is  not 
whether  the  sacred  writings  speak  of  election  and 
predestination,  but  whether  the  election  and  pre- 
destination, of  which  they  speak,  are  to  be  un- 
derstood in  an  individual  or  a  collective  sense :  and 
if  they  are  to  be  taken  in  an  individual  sense, 
whether  they  are,  or  are  not  represented  as  found- 
ed on  prescience.  To  draw  the  conclusion,  there- 
fore, that  the  English  Reformers  were  Calvini^ts^ 
because  they  occasionally  used  the  words  in  ques- 
tion, is  simply  taking  for  granted  the  point  in  dis- 
pute; but  the  passages,  which  I  have  quoted 
from  these  Reformers,  are  so  precise  and  une- 
quivocal as  to  place  the  subject  of  their  opinions 
beyond  the  reach  of  controversy.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible to  imagine  language  more  decidedly  anti- 

in  a  wrong  sense,  as  if  God  required  no  more  in  a  reasonable  man, 
than  in  a  dead  post,  and  mnrk  not  the  words  which  ioWov:— Every  man 
that  hearethy  and  learneth  of  my  Father,  cometh  unto  me— God  draweth 
with  uis  word  md  the  Holy  Gliost,  but  man's  duty  is  to  hear  and 
learn;  that  is  to  sav,  to  receive  t!ie  grace  offered,  consent  to  tlie  pro- 
inis%  and  not  to  impugn  the  God  that  calleth."*  The  language  of 
the  ve  arable  Latimer  is  equally  strong—"  God*s  salvation  is  sufficient 
to  save  all  mankind.  But  we  refuse  the  same,  and  will  not  take  it 
when  'tis  offered  unto  us."  "  Such  men  are  the  cause  of  their  own 
damnation,  for  God  would  have  them  saved,  but  tliey  refuse  it  like 
Judas  the  traitor,  whom  Christ  would  have  had  to  be  saved,  but  he 
refused  his  salvation."-|- 

*  Heylin's  Qoinqiiarticular  History,  part  iJ.  chsp.  10,  sect.  8.         t  ^^**^' 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  260 

Calvinistic  than  thai  just  produced  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Cranmcr,  Ridley,  Hooper,  and  Latimer.* 

*  See  the  strong-  laiip;n!»£;-e  used  in  ti.e  preface  to  the  edition  of  the 
Book  of  Homilits  wliich  was  published  in  the  year  1562,  the  very  year 
in  which  the  Articles,  as  they  now  stand,  were  formally  ratified! 
The  desig-n  of  the  publication  is  declared  to  be  "  that  all  the  people 
may  learn  iiow  to  invocate  aiul  call  upon  the  name  of  God,  and  know 
what  duty  they  owe  both  to  God  and  man,  so  that  they  may  pray,  be- 
lieve, and  work  according  to  knowkd^^e,  while  they  shall  live  here, 
and  after  this  life  be  with  him,  that  with  his  blood  hath  bought  ut 

ALL." 

In  the  year  1572,  ten  years  after  the  ratification  of  the  Articles^ 
Archbishop  Tarker  publislied  an  edition  of  the  Bishop's  Bible,  in  the 
preface  to  wliich  the  Archbishop  thus  writes — "  To  all  belongeth  it 
to  be  called  unto  eternal  life — no  man,  woman,  or  child,  is  excluded 
from  this  salvation.  For  he  that  hath  care  of  all,  accepteth  no  man's 
person  :  his  will  is  that  all  men  should  be  saved." 

This  lang-uage  is,  surely,  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  unconditional  election  of  some  individuals,  and  the  unconditional 
reprobation  of  others,  by  an  eternal  decree  of  God. 

In  reply  to  this,  it  has  been  said  that  the  notes  to  Archbishop  Par- 
ker's edition  of  the  Bible  are  Calvinistic;  if  so,  the  work  must  be  very 
inconsistent  with  itself.  But  let  us  examine  the  case  which  has  been 
adduced  as  evidence  of  the  Calvinistic  complexion  of  the  notes  in 
question,  and  which  is,  no  doubt,  one  of  the  strongest  that  could  be 
selected  for  the  purpose.  •*  Have  I  any  desire  that  the  wicked  should 
die,  saith  the  Lord  God  ?"f  JCote.  "  He  speaketh  this  to  commend 
God's  mercie  to  poor  siimers,  who  rather  is  ready  to  pardon  than  to 
punisli,  as  his  long  suffering  declareth.  Albeit,  God  in  his  eternal 
counsel  appointed  the  death  and  damnation  of  the  reprobate,  yet  the 
end  of  his  counsel  was  not  their  death  only,  but  chiefly  his  own  glory.** 
Is  this  a  declaration  that  God,  by  an  unconditional  decree,  having  no 
reference  to  faith  or  works,  or  any  other  thing*  in  the  creature,  elected 
some  men  to  life,  and  consigned  others  to  deatli ;  converting  and  sanc- 
tifying the  former  by  irresistible  grace,  and  withholding  from  the 
latter  those  influences  of  the  Spirit  without  which  they  must  necessa- 
rily perish  ?  By  no  means — It  amounts  simply  to  a  declaration  that 
God  determined,  from  all  eternity,  to  inflict  the  punisliment  of  ever- 
lasting death  upon  the  wicked.  The  words  import  no  more;  and  vc 
are  never  to  put  a  construction  upon  the  language  of  an  author,  if  it 

t  Ezckicl  xviii,  C3. 


27D  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

4.  I  proceed  to  mention  a  fact,  which  shows 
most  conclusively  that  the  Church  of  England  was 
very  far  from  intending,  in  her  Articles,  to  esta- 
blish the  doctrines  of  Calvinism. 

Early  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  the  paraphrase 
of  Erasmus  was  ordered  to  be  kept  in  every 
parish  for  the  general  instruction  of  the  people. 
Now,  the  opinions  of  Erasmus  on  the  subject  of 
free  will  and  of  absolute  decrees  are  perfectly  well 
known ;  on  these  points  he  wrote  professedly  against 
Luther.  If  the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land had  been  Calvinists,  would  they  have  select- 
ed a  decidedly  anti-Calvinistic  paraphrase  of  the 
Gospel  for  the  general  instruction  of  the  people  ? 
It  is  clear,  from  the  circumstance  in  question,  that 
the  English  Reformers,  in  the  early  part  of  Ed- 
ward's reign,  were  not  in  the  least  degree  tinctured 
with  the  peculiar  tenets  of  Calvin.  Their  opinions, 
on  these  points,  indeed,  appear  to  have  been  quite 
uniform.  Nothing  can  be  more  decisive  than  the 
language  of  the  work,  entitled,  "  Necessary  Erudi- 
tion for  any  Christian  Man,"  published  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII.;  shortly  after  the  decease 
of  Henry,  the  general  use  of  the  Homilies  was 
enjoined,  and  the  paraphrase  of  Erasmus  set  up 
in  the  parish  churches  ; — so  that  from  the  early 

can  possibly  be  avoided,  which  will  make  him  contradict  himself. 
The  extract  from  the  preface  to  Archbishop  Parker's  edition  of  the  Bi- 
ble can  never  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of  absolute  uncondi- 
tional election  and  reprobation ;  while  the  note  on  Ezekiel  by  no  means 
asserts  that  doctrine,  but  merely  sets  forth  God's  eternal  purpose  to 
punish  those  who  resist  the  repeated  calls  to  repentance,  by  persever- 
ing' in  their  sins 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  271 

period  of  the  Reformation  to  the  regular  settle- 
ment  of  the  Church  under  Edward  VI.  nothing 
like  the  confined  ideas  of  Calvin  on  the  subject  of 
election,  predestination,  free  will,  prevailed  among 
the  English  Reformers. 

5.  This  is  the  proper  place  for  mentioning  an- 
other important  circumstance  to  show  that  the  Re- 
formers of  the  Church  of  England  were  at  all  times 
free  from  any  thing  like  a  Calvinistic  tendency.  I 
allude  to  the  extremely  pressing  invitations  which 
were  repeatedly  given  to  Melancthon,  in  the  reigns 
both  of  Henry  and  of  Edward,  to  settle  in  England. 
At  the  very  time  the  Articles  were  preparing,  the 
Theological  Professorship  of  Cambridge  was  kept 
open  for  his  acceptance.  Now  it  is  well  known 
that  Melancthon  opposed  the  Calvinistic  tenets 
with  the  greatest  vehemence.  He  openly  branded 
Calvin  as  the  Zeno  of  the  age,  and  gave  to  his 
speculations  the  title  of  "  stoical  necessity."* 
From  a  copy  of  the  Articles  of  concord  between 
the  Churches  of  Zurich  and  Geneva,  he  indig- 
nantly expunged  the  Article  de  electione  ;  of 
which  Calvin  bitterly  complained.  Now,  if  the 
Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  had  been 
Calvinists,  would  they  have  been  so  solicitous  for 
the  presence  of  the  great  opposer  of  their  favour- 
ite doctrines  ?  Surely  they  would  have  been  dis- 
posed to  seek  the  aid  of  Calvin,  not  that  of  his  dis- 
tinguished antagonist.f 

*  Melanct.  Epist.  lib.  iv.  ep.  796,  p.  923.     See  Brandt,  vol.  ii.  p.  314. 
See  also  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectui-es,  p.  418,  &c. 
t  Luther  and  Melancthon,  in  the  early  part  of  tlieir  lives,  v,cr?  de- 


272  CALVIM;5M.  LET.  VII f. 

6.  The  English  Reformers  were  far  from  follow- 
ing implicitly  any  human  guide.  They  examined 
the  sacred  writings  with  the  most  profound  and 
deliberate  attention;  in  the  interpretation  of  which, 
they  had  great  reference  to  the  flxith  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  as  ascertained  by  the  testimony  of  an- 
tiquity. They  drank  not  at  a  distant  point  of  the 
stream,  but  ascended  to  the  fountain  itself.  As 
far,  however,  as  they  respected  or  followed  any 
modern  authority,  the  Lutheran  Church  of  Ger- 
many was  their  guide.  There  was  a  very  inti- 
mate intercourse  between  Molancthon  and  Cran- 
mer  ;  they  had  the  greatest  respect  and  affection 
for  each  other.  Cranmer  had  formed  an  extensive 
acquaintance  in  Germany  when  he  visited  the  con- 
tinent on  the  subject  of  Henry's  divorce  ;  be  had, 
too,  married  a  niece  of  one  of  the  Lutheran  Re- 
formers. 

But  we  have  much  more  decisive  evidence  of 
the  Lutheran  prepossessions  of  the  chief  conductor 
of  the  English  Reformation.  He  translated  a 
Lutheran  Catechism,  which  he  dedicatf'd  to  the 
King,  and  recommended  as  a  manual  for  forming 

cided  fatalists  ;  they  inculcated  the  doctrine  of  an  infallible  necessity. 
But  they  soon  became  more  wise.  The  doctrine  in  question  wus  re- 
nounced by  them  so  early  as  the  year  1527,  before  the  ('oiifcssion  of 
Aug'sburg-,  which  is  constructtd  upon  very  different  principles.  Me- 
lancthon  expunged  the  doctrine  from  his  celebrated  work,  the  '*  Loci 
Theologici,"  and  inserted  the  opposite  doctrine  of  contin^ncy  in  it« 
place.  In  a  letter  to  Cranmer,  he  speaks  of  the  horrid  speculations 
which  had  prevailed  in  Germany  concerning-  a  stoical  fate,  and  entreats 
the  Archbishop  to  guard  against  a  similar  evil.  He  branded  the  doc- 
ti'ine,  indeed,  as  ilike  pernicious  to  morals,  and  dishonourable  to  God. 
StT  La-"renc<^9  Hampton  L''ctw^^.     J^otc  21  to  Scrmov  2. 


LET.  VIII,  GALVINISM.  273 

the  principles  of  the  rising  generation.  All  the 
publications  in  the  reign  of  Henry,  indeed,  were 
of  a  decidedly  Lutheran  complexion;  and  when 
the  Articles  were  drawn  up  and  authoritatively  set- 
tled, shortly  after  the  accession  of  Edward  to  the 
throne,  the  most  copious  assistance  was  derived 
from  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  the  admirable 
production  of  Melancthon's  pen.  The  first  and 
second  of  the  English  Articles  are  copied,  almost 
word  for  word,  from  the  first  and  second  of  the  Arti- 
cles of  Augsburg;  the  ninth,  sixteenth,  twenty- 
fifth,  twenty-sixth,  thirty-first,  and  thirty-fourth 
Articles,  are  also  evidently  derived  from  the  same 
source.  When  the  Church  was  re-settled,  in  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  principal  additions  and  elu- 
cidations, excepting  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, were  taken  from  the  Lutheran  Confession  of 
Wirtemberg.*  At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Articles  under  Edward,  Calvin  and  Calvinism  had 
attracted  very  little  notice ;  indeed,  Calvin  was 
principally  indebted  for  his  celebrity  to  the  dispute 
on  predestination,  in  which  his  first  tract  did  not 
appear  until  the  year  1552; — the  very  year  in 
which  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
agreed  to  in  Convocation.f 

Of  the  small  comparative  space  which  Calvin 
occupied,  at  this  time,  in  the  public  eye,  a  most 

♦  The  reader  who  wishes  to  pursue  this  subject  is  referred,  particu- 
larly, to  the  first  and  second  Sermons  of  Dr.  Laurence,  with  the  notes 
annexed  to  them.  The  different  Articles,  above  mentioned,  are  there 
minutely  compared  with  the  passages  of  the  Augsburg  and  W'irtem- 
5>erg  Confessions,  from  which  they  were  derived 

t  See  Strype*s  Life  of  Cranmer,  p.  272. 

35 


274  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII, 

decisive  proof  may  be  derived  from  the  work  of 
Fox,  the  celebrated  Martyroiogist.  Fox  was  a 
zealous  Calvinist  ^  and  yet,  in  the  accounts  which 
he  gives  of  the  Martyrs  who  suffered  during  the 
persecution  of  Mary,  we  find  tlicm  in  no  instance 
accused  of  the  heresy  of  Calvin,  but  invariably  of 
that  of  Luther  or  Zuingle.  Fox,  too,  dwells  at 
much  length  upon  the  merits  and  writings  of  Lu- 
ther and  Zuingle,  while  Calvin  is  passed  without 
particular  notice. 

Calvin  made  an  offer  of  his  assistance  to  Cran- 
mer  in  the  great  work  of  reforming  the  Church  of 
England.  But  what  was  the  result?  The  Arch- 
bishop knew  the  man,  and  declined  the  offer.* 
And  we  find  Calvin  expressly  complaining,  in  a 
letter  to  some  of  those  who  fled  from  the  persecu- 
tion of  Mary,  of  the  little  attention  that  had  been 
given  to  his  counsels.  "  But  I  speak  in  vain  to 
them  which  perchance  esteem  me  not  so  well,  ae 
they  will  vouchsafe  to  admit  the  counsel  that  Com- 
eth from  such  an  author.' f 

7.  Conclusive  evidence  that  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England  are  not  Calvinistic  is  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  conduct  of  the  Calvinists  them- 
selves. The  case  of  the  Lambeth  Articles,  whicb 
yon  have  been  so  imprudent  as  to  rite,  goes  directly 
to  this  point.  Undoubtedly,  at  the  time  the  Lam- 
beth Articles  were  drawn  up,  Calvinism  prevailed, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  among  the  Clergy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  particularly  in  the  L  ui- 

•  IIc\ViTi'.s  History  of  the-  Reforn.alion,  p.  65. 

f  Winchester  on  the  seventeenth  Article,  p.  41,  42. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVlNISWr.  275 

versity  of  Cambridge.  The  divines  of  this  Uni- 
versity, by  whom  the  Lambeth  Articles  were  com- 
posed, being  Ciilvinists,  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
Standards  of  the  Church  of  England.  If  they  he- 
lieved  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  to  be 
Calvinistic,  why  did  they  wish  to  make  any  change  ? 
But  what  was  the  issue  ?  The  Lambeth  Articles, 
so  far  from  receiving  the  sanction  of  the  Church  of 
England,  were  ordered  to  be  suppressed  ;  so  great 
was  the  dissatisfaction  excited,  that  the  divines 
concerned  in  drawing  them  up,  were  threatened 
with  a  premunire ;  and  so  complete  was  the  sup- 
pression, that  not  a  copy  was  to  be  met  with  for  a 
considerable  period  afterwards.* 

Now,  what  does  this  case  of  the  Lambeth  Arti- 
cles prove  ?  It  proves,  first,  that  the  divines  of 
Cambridge,  who  drew  them  up,  were  Calvinists; 
secondly,  that  they  regarded  the  thirty- nine  Arti- 
cles as  not  Calvinistic;  and,  thirdly,  the  rejection 
and  suppression  of  the  Lambeth  Articles,  prove 
completely  that  the  Church  of  England  was  nei- 
ther believed  nor  intended,  by  those  in  authority, 
to  rest  upon  a  Calvinistic  foundation. 

Upon  the  accession  of  James  I.  to  the  throne, 
the  Lambeth  Articles  were  again  attempted  to 
be  introduced.     This  was  at  the  celebrated  con» 


*  Collier's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  644,  645.  The  Lambeth 
Articles  gave  gTv^at  offence  not  only  ut  court,  but  in  tlie  university  also. 
The  Calvinists,  it  is  true,  appear  to  have  had  the  ascendency  in  Cam- 
bridge at  this  period:  but  there  was  a  strong  party  In  opposition  tc^ 
them  ;  at  the  head  of  which  was  the  celebrated  Or.  liaroe,  Mar^are^. 
rrt>fessor  of  Divinity, 


276  CALVINISM^  LET.  vm* 

ference  at  Hampton  Court.  Dr.  John  Reynolds, 
the  spokesman  of  the  Calvinists,  moved  his  Ma- 
jesty "  that  the  nine  assertions  orthodoxal,"  as  hd 
termed  them,  "  concluded  upon  at  Lambeth,  might 
be  inserted  into  the  book  ol'  Articles."  Reynolds 
also  moved  that  the  words  "  yet  neither  totally  nor 
finally"  should  immediately  follow  the  clause  of 
the  sixteenth  Article — "  after  we  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost,  we  may  depart  from  grace."* 
Both  these  propositions  failed.f  The  history  of 
the  conference  in  question,  proves,  first,  that  the 
Calvinists,  at  that  time,  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
thirty-nine  Articles,  as  not  sufficiently  Calvinistic; 
and,  secondly,  that  there  was  no  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  Church  of  England  to  admit  alter- 
ations that  should  give  her  a  Calvinistic  com- 
plexion. 

But  what  was  the  conduct  of  the  Calvinists 
when  they  got"  into  power?  They  immediately 
set  about  a  Reformation  ''  of  the  errors  and  im- 
perfections of  the  Church,  as  well  in  matter  of 
doctrine  as  disciphne."  The  first  fifteen  Articles 
were  revised  by  "  the  Assembly  of  Divines,"  "  with 
a  design,"  in  the  language  of  Neal,  "  to  render 
their  sense  more  express  and  determinate  in  fa- 
vour of  Calvinism."!     And  what  alterations  did 

•  See  the  account  of  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  in  Collier's  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  vol.  H.  p.  672  to  684.  See  also  Laurence's  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures,  p.  181 — 184. 

f  Tlicy  were  opposed  by  the  commissioners  who  attended  on  the  part 
of  the  Church ;  consisting-  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  eight  Br* 
ahdps,  seven  Deans,  and  two  Doctors. 

t  History  of  the  Purit^s,  vol.  i.  p.  48,  edit,  of  1754 


LET.  VIIL  CALVINISM.  277 

the  Assembly  of  Divines  introduce  P  The  ninth 
Article,  on  original  sin,  they  amended  thus — 
"  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of 
Adam,  as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk,  but  (toner 
ther  with  his  first  sin  imputed)  it  is  the  fault  and 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man  that  na- 
turally is  propagated  from  Adam,  whereby  man  is 
(wholly  deprived  of*)  original  righteousness,  and 
is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  (only)  to  evil — yet 
the  Apostle  doth  confess  that  concupiscence  and 
lust  (is  truly  and  properly  5m. "jf 

Here  was  an  attempt  to  introduce  into  the  ninth 
Article  the  doctrines  of  total  depravity,  and  of  the 
imputation  of  the  guilt  of  our  first  parents  to  their 
posterity;  and  the  attempt  involves  a  confession 
that  those  doctrines  are  not  taught  by  the  Article 
in  its  present  form. 

The  tenth  Article,  upon  free  will,  was  altered 
llius — "  We  have  no  power  to  do  good  works, 
pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace 
of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have 
a  good  will,  (and  working  so  effectually  in  us,  as 
that  it  determineth  our  will  to  that  which  is  good^) 
and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good 
will." 

Do  the  x\rticles  of  our  Church  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  irresistible  grace  ?  We  have  here  a  fail 
acknowledgment  that  they  do  not,  from  the  Cal- 
vinists  themselves. 


•  "  Very  far  gone  from,"  are  the  words  of  ttxe  Article. 

f  The  words  of  the  Article  are,  •♦  hath  of  itself  the  nature  of  sin. 


278  CALVINISM.  LET.  Vlli, 

In  the  €-leventli  Article,  upon  justification,  the 
doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  believers,  was  introduced  by  an  insertion 
of  the  following  clause — ''  his  whole  obedience  and 
satisfaction  beinq  by  God  imputed  unto  1/5."  So 
that,  by  the  admission  of  Calvinists  themselves, 
our  Articles  are  not  less  free  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  than  from 
that  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt. 

"  That  the  Assembly  of  Divines,"  to  use  the 
words  of  Dr.  Laurence,  "  proceeded  no  further  in 
their  labours  than  to  the  review  of  the  fifteenth 
Article,  might  be  owing  to  a  persuasion  of  the  at- 
tempt being  hopeless,  from  the  incorrigibility  of 
the  ancient  creed;  or  perhaps  to  a  prospect,  which 
then  began  to  open  rapidly  upon  the  Puritanical 
cause,  not  merely  of  reforming  the  Church,  but 
altogether  of  subverting  it."* 

Of  the  pages  in  which  you  profess  to  prove  that 
the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
Calvinists,  but  a  sin2:le  sentence  bears  upon  the 
original  Reformers  under  Edward,  by  whom  the 
Articles  were  drawn  up,  and  the  Church  was  or- 
ganized^t   This  sentence  contains  a  palpable  mis- 

*  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  185. 

The  i.eneral  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  thlt 
country  adopted  the  Articles  of  the  CImrcli  of  Englaud  by  an  unani- 
mous vote  ;  and  yet  tht-re  was  not  a  single  Calvinist  i|)  the  body. 

f  The  Articles  drawn  up  under  Edward,  it  lias  bien  already  men- 
tioned,  were  not  altered  in  any  thing  at  all  mateDul,  as  far  as  Calvinism 
is  concerned,  upon  the  re-settlement  of  the  Church  in  the  reign  erf 
Elizabeth 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  27^ 

«5talemciit;  and  oi*  the  remainder  of  your  book, 
which  relates  to  the  sentiments  of  the  Reformers 
and  other  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  is 
not  going  too  far  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  line 
whicii  is  free  from  error. 

But  let  us  descend  to  particulars. 

^'  The  illustrious  Reformer  and  Martyr,  Brad- 
ford, a  short  time  before  he  suffered,  wrote  and 
published  a  decidedly  Calvinistic  work  on  election 
and  predestination^  which  he  sent  to  Archbishop 
Cranmer^  and  to  Bishops  Ridley  and  Latimer,  who 
all  gave  it  their  approbation.''^* 

This  is  the  whole  of  what  you  say  relative  to 
the  opinions  of  the  original  Reformers. 

Let  us  see  how  far  it  corresponds  with  the  fact. 

Bradford  complained  that  his  treatise  on  Pre- 
destination had  not  received  the  sanction  of  Cran- 
raer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer;  to  which  Bishop  Rid- 
ley replied—"  Where  you  say,  that  if  your  request 
had  been  heard,  things  (you  thinke)  had  been  in 
better  case  than  they  be :  know  you  that  concerning 
the  matter  you  meane,  I  have,  in  Latin,  drawne 
out  the  places  of  the  Scriptures,  and  upon  the 
same  have  noted  what  I  can  for  the  time.  Syr, 
in  those  matters  1  am  so  fearful,  that  I  dare  not 
speak  farther,  yea  almost  none  otlierwise  than  the 
very  texte  dothe  (as  it  were)  lead  me  by  the 
hand."t 

The  fact,  therefore,  turns  out  to  be  in  direct 
opposition  to  your  statement.     Bradford's  treatise 

*  CoiUlnuation  of  Letters,  p.  351.  f  Martyr's  Letter?,  f,  64. 


280  ftALVINISM.  LET.  VIi;. 

ivas  condemned  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Lati- 
mer, as  carrying  the  point  of  predestination  fur- 
ther than  Scripture  will  warrant.* 

In  consequence  of  the  disapprobation  thus  ex- 
pressed by  Ridley,  Bradford  suppressed  his  treatise 
. — "  Hitherto  I  have  not  suffered  any  copye  of  the 
treatise  above  specified  to  go  abroade,  because  I 
would  suppresse  all  occasions  so  farre  as  myghte 
be  of  any  breach  of  love."t  This  shows  conclu- 
sively that  the  treatise  had  not  been  sanctioned  by 
the  holy  Martyrs  to  whom  it  was  sent;  for  if  their 
sanction  had  been  afforded,  its  author  would  un- 
doubtedly have  given  it  all  possible  circulation. 

From  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  it  clearly 
appears  that  the  seventeenth  Article  was  not  un- 
derstood by  the  Reformers  who  composed  it  in  a 
Calvinistic  sense  If  the  Article  had  been  framed 
upon  the  principles  of  Calvin,  Cranmer  and  Rid- 
ley could  not  possibly  have  refused  their  sanction 
to  the  treatise  of  Bradford ;  and  Bradford  would 
not  have  failed  to  urge  the  Article  as  a  conclusive 
reason  for  the  approbation  which  he  requested  at 
their  hands,  t 

*  This  is  evidently  implied  in  the  words  of  Ridley's  Letter—"  Where 
you  say,  that  if  your  request  had  been  heard,  things  had  been  in  better 
case  than  they  be."  The  Bishops,  then,  had  not  given  their  sanction 
to  Bradford's  Treatise.  They  considered  him  as  indulging  in  specula- 
tion on  a  subject,  with  respect  to  which,  man  can  safely  go  no  further 
than  the  plain  letter  of  Scripture  will  carry  him.  How  wise  is  the  re- 
mark of  Ridley  !  What  contention  and  scandal  have  not  the  rash  spe- 
culations of  Calvin  and  his  followers,  on  a  subject  far  beyond  the  reach 
«f  our  limited  faculties,  given  rise  to  in  the  Christian  world! 

T  Martyr's  Letters,  p.  473. 

+  Ihe  u'hole  of  the  transaction  in  question  accords  exactly  with  tlie 
view  wliich  lias  been  presented  of  the  seventeenth  Article,  as  inten^d 


LET.  VIII. 


CALVINISM.  281 


But  further,  Bradford  was  not  a  thorough  Cal- 
vinist ;  for,  in  the  treatise  of  which  we  are  speak- 
ing, he  asserts  the  doctrine  of  universal  redemp- 
tion ;*  and  in  his  '*  Meditations  on  the  Lord's 
Prayer,"  he  represents  the  sins  of  the  reprobate 
as  the  cause  of  their  reprobation.f 

You  do  not  give  with  accuracy  the  statement  of 
the  historian  Strype,  relative  to  the  transaction 
between  Bradford,  and  the  Bishops  Ridley,  Cran- 
mer,  and  Latimer. 

The  passage  of  Strype  is  in  the  following  words 
— "  Upon  this  occasion  Ridley  wrote  a  treatise  of 
God's  election  and  predestination.  And  Bradford 
wrote  another  upon  the  same  subject,  and  sent  it 
to  those  three  fathers  in  Oxford  for  their  approba- 
tion ;  and  theirs  being  obtained,  the  rest  of  the 
eminent  divines,  in  and  about  London,  were  ready 
to  sign  it  also."t  Strype  does  not  say  that  the 
London  divines  actually  signed  the  treatise — they 
were  only  ready  to  sign.  And  the  clause  "  theirs 
being  obtained,  the  divines  in  and  about  London 
were  ready  to  sign  also,"  amounts  simply  to  this — 
that  the  divines  of  London  were  ready  to  sign 
Bradford's  treatise  in  case  it  should  receive  the 
approbation  of  Ridley,   Cranmer,   and  Latimer. 

to  declare  Cod's  eternal  purpose  to  deal  with  fallen  man  in  mercy 
through  a  Redeemer ;  and  his  election  of  a  Church  out  of  the  world 
as  the  depository  of  his  covenant  and  his  grace.  So  far  Scripture  may 
fairly  be  said,  on  this  subject,  to  "lead  us  by  the  hand."  All  Ije- 
yond  is  human  speculation. 

*  See  Winchester  on  the  seventeenth  Article,  p.  71. 

f  See  Laurence's  liampton  Lectures,  p.  458,  4.59. 

t  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  350. 


282  CALVINISM.  LET.  VlII, 

Now  it  does  not  appear  that  the  London  divines 
ever  signed  the  treatise  in  question ;  if  they  had 
actually  signed  it,  Strype  would  have  said  so : — 
the  obvious  conclusion,  therefore,  from  Strype's 
own  account  is,  that  Bradford's  treatise  never  re- 
ceived the  approbation  of  the  Bishops.  This  in- 
terpretation, too,  and  this  alone,  makes  Strype 
consistent  with  the  letters  of  the  Martyrs;  which 
are  in  fact,  the  only  authentic  evidence  on  the 
subject.* 

*  Bradford,  in  tlie  letter  which  he  wrote  to  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and 

Latimer,  says "  the  prisoners  hereaboutes  have  sene  it  and  rede  it, 

(his  treatise  on  God's  election)  and  as  therein  they  agree  with  me :  so 
they  are  ready  and  will  be  to  si^ifie  it  as  tliey  shall  see  you  give  them 
example:'-^  On  this  passage  Strype  grounds  his  declaration,  "  their 
consent  being  obtained,  the  rest  of  the  eminent  divines  in  and  about 
London  were  ready  to  sign  also.**  It  is  evident,  therefore,  as  well  from 
the  authority  on  which  Strype  makes  his  statement,  as  from  his  mode 
of  expression,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  assert  that  Cranmer,  Ridley, 
and  Latimer  gave  their  sanction  to  Bradford's  treatise  ;  but  merely  that 
the  prisoners  were  ready  to  sign  it  in  case  it  should  meet  with  the  ap- 
probation  of  those  Prelates.  Now  compare  this  with  the  decided  lan- 
guage which, you  employ— "  The  illustrious  Reformer  and  Martvr, 
Bradford,  wrote  and  published  a  decidedly  Calvinistic  work  on  election 
and  predestination,  which  he  sent  to  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  to  Bi- 
shops Ridley  and  Latimer,  who  all  gave  it  their  approbation ;  after 
which  it  received  the  approbation  of  the  eminent  ministers  in  and  about 

London."^ 

Your  statement  is  erroneous  in  all  its  parts.  Bradford's  treatise  was 
condemned  instead  of  being  sanctioned  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Lati- 
mer ;  in  consequence  of  which  it  was  never  signed  by  the  other  Clergy, 
but  was  quickly  suppressed  by  its  author  himself. 

Strype's  account  of  the  disputes  between  the  Protestants  who  were 
confined  in  prison  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  is  far  from  impar- 
tial; being  founded  entirely  on  the  testimony  of  tlic  predestinarian 
party.    The  whole  matter  is  fully  explained  in  Dr.  Laurence's  Bamptoa 

f  Martyr's  Letters,  p.  358. 

^  For  allUiis  you  quote  Strype'a  Life  of  Cranmer,  p.  350,  as  your  auihorr^T 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  283 

"  The  convocation  which  drew  up  the  thirty- 
nine  Articles,  reviewed,  corrected,  formally  ap- 
proved, and  ordered  to  be  published,  as  it  now 
stands,  the  celebrated  Catechism  of  Dr.  Nowell. 
This  Catechism  is  acknowledged,  by  the  worst 
enemies  of  Calvin,  to  be  decidedly  Calvinistic."*^ 

Let  me  refer  you,  on  this  subject,  to  the  excel- 
lent Life  of  Nowell,  lately  published  by  Ralph 
Churton,  and  particularly  recommended  by  the 
Quarterly  Reviewf  for  the  minute  and  laborious 
attention  which  the  author  appears  to  have  paid 
to  original  authorities — "  He  studiously  avoids  the 
absolute,  and,  as  Calvin  himself  calls  it,  ^  horrible 
decree,'  by  which  it  is  said  that  God,  without  any 
regard  to  faith  and  obedience,  has  elected  some 
to  life,  and  doomed  others  to  perdition ;  and  that 
Christ  died,  not  for  the  whole  world,  but  for  the 
elect  only.  In  contradistinction,  or  rather  in  con- 
tradiction to  these  uncharitable  and  shocking  te- 
nets, he  teaches  expressly,  that  *  God  the  Son 
hath  redeemed  the  whole  race  of  mankind.'t  He 
gives  preescientia  as  an  equivalent  and  purer  term 
for  prcedestinatio ;  he  says  that  *  those  who  are 
steadfast,  stable,  and  constant  in  faith,  they  are 

Lectures,  from  a  manuscript  now  existing  in  the  Bodleian  library.  It 
would  appear,  by  this  manuscript,  that  the  charge  of  Pelagianism 
brought  against  the  anti-predestinarians  was  a  calumny,  and  that  they 
were  anxious  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  settled 
in  the  reformation  under  King  Edward,  Stnpe  had,  doubtless,  never 
seen  the  manuscript  in  question ;  but  was  obliged  to  derive  his  infor- 
mation altogether  from  exparte  statements. 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  3*0,  331.  f  Vol.  iii.  p.  112. 

*  "  Deum  filium  qui  me,  et  universum  genus  humanum  redemlt." 
Smallest  Catechism. 


284  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

elected  and  appointed,  and  (as  we  term  it)  pre- 
destinated to  happiness,'  (making  election  the 
consequent,  not  the  antecedent  or  cause,  of  be- 
lief and  obedience ;)  and  plainly  supposes,  with 
the  Apostle,  that  '  the  weak  brother  may  perish, 
for  whom  Christ  died."* 

"  By  the  confession  of  Heylin  himself,  an  im- 
placable enemy  of  Calvin,  the  great  body  of  the 
Bishops  and  other  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land were  doctrinal  Calvinists,  for  more  than  half 
a  century  after  the  Articles  were  formed."t  This 
is  a  total  misrepresentation.  It  would  take  se- 
veral pages  fully  to  explain  those  parts  of  Heylin 
on  which  the  above  passage  of  your  Letters  is 
grounded— I  shall  content  myself,  therefore,  with 
referring  the  reader  to  Daubeny's  Vindicia)  Eccle- 
siae  Anglicanae,t  where  he  will  find  that  Heylin's 
design  was  to  contradict  the  very  position  which 
Overton,  from  whom  you  have  borrowed  on  the 
occasion,  had  cited  him  to  establish. 

The  British  delegates  to  the  Synod  of  Dort  un- 
doubtedly held  some  of  the  Calvinistic  opinions; 
but  they  strenuously  opposed  others.     Attend  to 

•  Churton's  Life  of  Nowell,  p.  375,  376. 

The  following  passage  is  contained  in  a  Sermon  preached  by  Nowell 
in  the  year  1566: — "  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  them  (Tyre,  8ic.) 
in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  tliis  people,  -which  is  the  elect  of  God.'* 
This  proves,  first,  that  Nowell  used  the  word  elect  not  in  ixn  individual, 
but  in  a  collective  sense;  and,  secondly,  that  he  believed  it  possible  for 
the  elect  t<.  perish  §     Is  this  the  language  of  Calvinism  ? 

•^  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  332,  333. 

i  Page  122—127. 

$  Chuilon's  Life  of  NowclJ,  p.  130. 


LET.  vni 


CALVINISM.  285 


the  following  propositions  oflcred  to  the  Synod  by 
those  venerable  men! — "  God,  having  compassion 
on  the  sinful  race  of  men,  sent  his  own  Son,  who 
gave  himself  a  ransom  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world."  "  As,  according  to  the  evangelical  pro- 
mise, salvation  is  offered  to  all  men;  the  adminis- 
tration of  God's  grace  in  the  Church  is  such  as  is 
sufficient  to  convince  all  impenitent  and  incredu- 
lous men,  that  they  have  perished,  and  forfeited 
the  benefits  offered  to  them,  through  their  own 
voluntary  fault." 

In  the  writings  of  the  venerable  Bishop  Hall, 
to  whom  you  more  than  once  allude,  the  doctrines 
of  partial  redemption  and  irresistible  grace  are 
expressly  disclaimed.* 

You  represent  the  great  Hooker  as  a  Calvinist. 
But,  among  the  unsound  doctrines  which  the  Cal- 
vinist, Travers,  charged  Hooker  with  preaching, 
are  the  following: — ^'  Predestination  is  not  of  the 
absolute  will  of  God,  but  condiiionaiy  "  The  do- 
ings of  the  wicked  are  not  of  the  will  of  God 
positive^  but  only  permissive.^^  "  The  reprobates 
are  not  rejected,  but  for  the  evil  ivorks  which  God 
did  foresee  they  would  commit."t 

Will  you  still  claim  Hooker  as  a  Calvinist  ?t 

*  A  more  particular  notice  will  be  taken  of  the  opinions  of  Bishop 
Hall  in  the  concluding  letter  of  this  work. 

f  See  the  Life  of  Mr.  Richard  Hooker,  prefixed  to  his  works,  vol.  i. 
p.  €7,  Oxford  edit.   1793. 

t  It  was  not  until  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
that  Calvinism  became  powerful  in  the  Church  of  England.  For  this 
we  liave  the  explicit  testimony  of  Strype — "  Calvin,  the  great  foreign 
Reformer,  his  way  of  explaining  the  divine  decrees  of  predestination 
was  not  entertained  by  many  learned  men  in  the  university  of  Cambridge. 


386  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

But  even  Overton,  and  the  Editors  of  the  Chris- 
tian Observer,  from  whom  you  have  derived  so 
much  on  this  subject,  expressly  declare — "  No- 
ting is  further  from  our  purpose  than  to  infer  that 
the  precise  theological  system  of  John  Calvin,  in 
all  its  parts,  and  to  its  full  extent,  was  intended  to 
be  established  in  the  thirty-nine  Articles  to  the 
exclusion  of  every  milder  sentiment.  To  say  the 
least^  our  established  forms  do  not  teach  directly 
several  doctrines  which  are  contained  in  Calvin's 
Institutions.  They  do  not,  with  his  work,  affirm 
that  the  fall  of  Adam  was  the  effect  of  a  divine 
decree.  They  do  not  use  the  language  it  does, 
respecting  the  extent  of  Christ's  redemption.  They 
are  silent  concerning  absolute  reprobation,  which 
is  here  taught  expressly."* 

Again — "  If  Calvinism  be  nothing  less  than  a 
precise  conformity  with  the  peculiar  system  of 
Calvin,  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  person 
who  contends  for  the  Calvinism  of  our  Articles. 

But  it  noTv  (1595)  about  the  latter  times  of  the  Queen's  reign,  prevailed 
strongly  there,  having  the  countenance  of  some  of  the  chief  heads."f 
Strype  adds,  that  even  the  Calvinists  themselves  did  not  maintain  that 
the  Articles  were  necessarily  to  be  understood  in  a  Calvinistic  sense. 
This,  indeed,  is  very  evident,  from  the  repeated  attempts  to  add  the 
Lambeth  Articles  to  the  Standards  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
from  the  Calvinists  proceeding,  when  they  got  into  power,  to  introduce 
material  alterations,  so  as  to  make  the  Articles  conformable  to  their 
ideas.  Speaking  of  the  period  in  question,  Dr.  Waterland  observes — 
"  Calvinism  appears  to  have  prevailed  at  Cambridge  beyond  what  it 
had  formerly  done.  The  seeds  had  been  sown  by  Cartwright,  while  he 
\vas  M^rgiret  Professor  there,  and  the  learned  VVIi.tacre  verj  much 
promoted  their  growth."  Case  of  Jirian  Subscription,  p.  45. 
•  Christian  Observer,  vol.  ii.  p.  430. 

t  Ui'v  of  Wliitgift,  p.  435. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  287 

Mr.  Overton  expressly  denies  such  an  agreement 
between  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  and  the 
creed  of  Geneva.''* 

Take  these  passages  in  connexion  with  the 
following,  and  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  a  stronger 
condemnation  of  the  system  of  Calvin,  and,  of 
course,  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
than  that  passed  upon  it,  at  least  by  necessary  im- 
plication,  in  the  Christian  Observer.  "  We  take 
this  occasion  of  stating  our  wish  to  have  it  une- 
quivocally understood,  that  when  the  Christian 
Observer  expresses  its  opinion,  that  the  Calvinis 
tic  system  is  consistent  with  the  Articles  and 
other  public  standards  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  by  no  means  liable  to  those  heavy  charges  of 
heterodoxy  and  immorality  which  some  of  our 
contemporaries  prefer  against  it,  we  mean  to 
speak  of  that  system  of  doctrine  which  pervades 
and  animates  the  writings  of  Bishop  Hall."t 
Thus  the  Editors  of  the  Christian  Observer,  after 
repeatedly  telling  us  that  they  do  not  embrace  the 
precise  system  of  Calvin,  and  that  it  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  find  a  person  who  contends  for  the  full  con- 
formity  of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England 
to  that  system,  do  not  scruple  to  say,  that  when 
they  represent  Calvinism  as  by  "  no  means  liable 
to  the  heavy  charges  of  heterodoxy  and  immo* 
rality,"  they  refer,  not  to  the  creed  of  Calvin  as 
contained  in  his  Institutes,  but  to  that  moderate 
system  of  doctrine  of  which  Bishop  Hall  is  the 

*  Christian  Observer,  vol.  i.  p.  597"  f  ^^'^^'  ^o^-  ii-  P-  484,  48"; 


288  CALVINISM.  LET*  VIU- 

advocate.  So  that  they  not  only  disclaim  the  sys- 
tem of  Calvin  and  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  but  even  all  attempt  to  defend  it  from 
the  heavy  char2;es  of  heterodoxy  and  immorality 
whi^h  arc  brought  aciainst  it  in  the  works  of  Dau- 
beny,  Kiplinii;,  and  other  contemporary  writers. 

It  is,  therefore,  doing  great  injustice  to  the  Edi- 
tors of  the  Christian  Observer  to  represent  them 
as  the  disciples  of  Calvin ;  indeed,  the  number  of 
such  disciples  in  the  Church  of  England  is  ex- 
tremely small.* 

You  mean  by  Calvinism,  doubtless,  the  system 
of  doctrine  taught  in  the  works  of  Calvin,  and 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith ;  which  is 
the  Contcssion  of  the  particular  religious  society  to 
which  you  belong.  If  you  do  not,  it  is  incumbent 
upon  you  to  tell  us  precisely  what  you  do  mean 
by  it;  otherwise,  all  your  observations  on  this 
suhject  must  be  quite  unintelligible. 

The  account  which  you  give  of  the  influence 
of  Calvin  with  the  Reformers  of  the  Church'  of 
England,  is  not  supported  by  the  authorities  w^hich 
you  cite. 

For  example,  you  say,  referring  to  Strype  for 
proof,  that ''  the  services  of  Calvin  were  expressly 
and  warmly  solicited  by  Archbishop  Cranmer;" 


*  Dr.  Hawker  and  Sir  Richard  Hill  are  real  followers  of  Calvin  ;  hut 
tnere  are  very  few  persons  of  their  stamp  in  the  Church  of  Ejigland. 
I  take  this  opportunity  of  observing  once  more,  that  when  I  speak  in 
.nrong  terms  of  reprobation  of  the  system  of  Calvinism,  I  have  refer- 
ence to  the  Institutes  of  Calvin,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  P'aith. 
ini  the  Y^'riMngrsof  such  men  as  Dr.  Hawker  and  Sir  Richard  Hill. 


I.KT.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  289 

,'ind    "  that  the    Archbishop  contanlly  consulted 
him,  oil  all  the  leading  questions  connected  with 
the  Reformation."*     Now  Strype  is  very  far  from 
bearing  you  out  in  these  assertions.     It  appears 
from  Strype  that  there  had  been  a  long  and  par- 
ticular intimacy  between  Melancthon  and  Cran- 
iner;  and  we  know  that  many  of  the  Articles  of 
the  Church  of  England,  as  drawn  up  by  Cranmer, 
were  copied  almost  literally   from  the   Augsburg 
Confession,  of  which  Melancthon  was  the  author. 
But  there  is    no  evidence  of  intimacy   between 
Calvin  and   Cranmcr.      Strype   informs   us  that 
Cranmer,  having  it  in  view  to  draw  up  a  system 
of    faith   in    which    the    whole    Protestant    world 
might    unite,  wrote    to   the    most  influential  Re- 
formers  on   the   Continent — among  the   rest,    to 
Bullinger,    Calvin,    and   Melancthon — requesting 
their  approbation  and  support.     Some  correspon- 
dence appears  to  have  taken  place  at  this  time 
between  Cranmer  and  Calvin,  in  which  Calvin, 
amid  many  complimentary  expressions,  took  the 
liberty   of  gently  reproving   the   Archbishop   for 
too  slow^  a  progress  in  the  work  of  reformation. 
Strype  represents  this  censure  as  injudicious  and 
unfounded;  but  observes,  that  Cranmer,  being  of 
a  very  mild  temper,  took  no  exception  at  the  re- 
buke, but  continued  his   esteem  for  the  writer. 
Strype  also  states  that  Cranmer  bestowed  much 
approbation  upon  a  particular  letter  of  Calvin  to 
the  King,  the  design  of  which  was  to  encourage 

'*  Contimiatiou  of  Letters,  p.  312,  Sll, 

37 


290  CALVINTSM.  LET.  VIII. 

and  excite  the  royal  youth  in  the  cause  of  reli- 
gion.^ Such  is  the  amount  of  what  Strype  says. 
The  reader  will  judge  how  far  it  supports  you  in 
the  assertion,  *'  that  the  services  of  Calvin  were 
expressly  and  warmly  solicited  by  Archbishop 
Cranmer,"  and  that  "  the  Archbishop  constantly 
consulted  him  on  all  the  leading  questions  con- 
nected with  the  Reformation."t 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  our  subject,  it  may 
be  well  to  take  a  little  notice  of  the  arguments  by 
which  you  attempt  to  defend  the  system  of  Cal- 
vin, and  to  repel  its  assailants. 

It  is  curious  to  observe  the  manner  in  which 
you  set  out  on  this  point — "  But  you  will,  perhaps, 
ask,  are  there  no  difficulties  to  be  encountered  in 
embracing  that  system  of  evangelical  truth,  which 
is  usually  styled  Calvinism?  It  ought  not  to  be 
disguised  that  there  are  in  this  system  real  diffi- 
culties, w^hich,  probably,  no  human  wisdom  will 
over  be  able  to  solve.  But  are  the  difficulties 
which  belong  to  the  system  of  Arminianism,  either 
fewer  in  number,  or  less  in  magnitude  ?  Instead 
of  this,  they  are  more  numerous,  and  more  seri- 
ous ;  more  contradictory  to  reason,  more  incon- 
sistent with  the  character  of  God,  and  more  di- 


*  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  407 — 413. 

t  The  preceding  view  of  the  opinions  of  the  Reformers  is  necessa^ 
rily  brief.  In  the  concluding  letter  of  this  work,  which  will  be  de- 
voted to  an  examination  of  certain  charges  and  statements  coiitHined 
in  your  life  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rogers,  tlie  opinions  in  question  will  be 
somewhat  further  inquired  into. 


LET.  VIII-  CALVINISM.  291 

rectly  opposed  both  to  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of 
his  word."* 

Here  you  appear  to  admit  that  the  Calvinistic 
and  Arniinian  systems  are  both  incapable  of  be- 
ing reconciled  with  either  reason  or  Scripture. 
But  you  embrace  the  Calvinistic  system,  it  would 
seem,  as  the  least  erroneous  of  the  two.  Thus  a 
doctrine  may  be  "  inconsistent  with  the  character 
of  God,  and  opposed  both  to  the  letter  and  the 
Spirit  of  his  word,"  and  still  be  worthy  of  all  ac- 
ceptation. No  other  construction  can  possibly  be 
put  upon  your  language;  and  yet  I  cannot  bring 
myself  to  believe  that  such  is  the  idea  which  you 
intended  to  convey.  The  passage,  then,  may  serve 
as  a  specimen  of  the  confusion  of  thought  and  of 
expression,  which  is  so  characteristic  of  your 
book. 
But  let  us  proceed. 

"  It  is  easy  and  popular  to  object,  that  Calvin^ 
ism  has  a  tendency  to  cut  the  nerves  of  all  spiri- 
tual exertion ;  that  if  we  are  elected^  there  is  no 
need  of  exertion,  and  if  not  elected,  it  will  be  in 
vain.  But  this  objection  lies  with  quite  as  much 
force  against  the  Arminian  hypothesis.  Dr.  Bow- 
den^  and  Mr.  How^  and  all  Arminians,  though 
they  reject  the  doctrine  of  election,  explicitly 
grant  that,  while  sotne  will,  in  fact,  be  saved, 
others  will,  in  fact,  as  certainly  perish.  Now  it 
is  perfectly  plain  that  this  position  is  just  as  liable 
to  the  abuse  above  stated,  as  the  Calvinistic  doc- 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  335. 


292  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

trine.  For  a  man  may  sny,  *  I  shall  either  be 
saved,  or  I  shall  not.  If  I  am  to  be  saved,  no 
anxiety  about  it  is  necessary;  and  if  I  am  to  pe- 
rish, all  anxiety  about  it  will  be  useless.'  Would 
these  gentlemen  consider  this  objv?clion  as  a  valid 
one  against  tlieir  creed?  I  presume  not.  But  it 
has  no  more  validity  against  o?«r5."* 

There  is  a  very  marked  difference  between  the 
Calvinistic  and  anti-Calvinistic  systems  in  this 
particular. 

Anti-Calvinists  believe  that  Christ  died  for  all 
men,  and  that  effectual^  grace  is  given  to  all ;  they 
consider  the  passion  of  om*  Saviour  as  placing  sal- 


•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  336. 

f  Wlien  Calvinists  speak  of  effectual  ^ace,  they  mean  irresistible 
grace  -, — anti-Calviniits  mean  by  it  sufficient  grace ;  that  is,  such  a  por- 
tion of  divine  aid  as  will  secure  to  us  eternal  life,  provided  we  yield  a 
sincere  and  zealous  co-operation.  But,  according  to  the  Calvinistic 
system,  the  whole  work  of  conversic.^  and  sanctification  is  effected  by 
the  power  of  God  He  decreed,  from  eternity,  to  save  an  elect  number; 
and  this  elect  number  he  decreed  to  convert  and  sanctify.  It  is  com- 
pletely,  therefore,  a  mechanical  process ;  the  elect  being-  created  sim- 
ply to  be  saved,  and  the  reprobate  simply  to  be  damned  Salvation  is 
forced  upon  the  former;  damnation  upon  the  latter: — the  former  cannot 
possibly  avoid  going  to  Heaven  ;  the  latter  are  equally  unable  to  avoid 
going  to  Hell.  Calvin  expressly  declares,  not  only  that  the  reprobate 
are  doomed  from  all  eternity  to  perdition,  but  that  Cod  uctualh  fits 
them  for  it;  blinding  their  understandings,  and  hardening  their  hearts. 
"  Whom,  therefore,  he  hath  created  unto  the  sliame  of  life  and  de- 
struction of  death,  that  they  should  be  instrumints  of  his  wrath,  .and 
examples  of  his  severity,  that  they  may  come  to  their  end;  at  one  time 
he  deprives  them  of  the  power  of  hearing  his  word ;  at  another,  Ive 
the  more  blinds  and  stupifies  them  by  the  preaching  of  it.  Ht-hold  I 
God  calls  to  them  but  for  the  purpose  of  their  l>cing  made  more  deuf ; 
he  s(  ts  his  light  bt  fore  them,  but  in  order  that  tluy  may  be  rendered 
rcore  blind  ;  he  holds  forth  doctrine  to  them,  but  that  tiny  may  he 
rendered  more  stupid  by  it ;  he  applies  a  remedy  to  them ;  but  not  that 


l.KT.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  29o 

vation  within  llu  reach  of  every  individual ; — so 
thalj  in  their  view  of  the  subject,  man  is  the  fa- 


tliey  may  be  healed."*  "  Tlicy  (the  reprobate)  cannot  avoid  the  ne- 
cessity of  sinning;  such  necessity  is  cast  upon  them  by  the  ordination 

Gf  C()d."t 

Conjarus  did  not  hesitate  to  declare,  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  that  God 
predestinates  man  to  death,  and  to  sin  as  the  only  way  to  death. 

"  Gomarus,  who  saw  that  his  iron  was  in  the  fire,  beg-an  to  tell  us 
that  Episcopius  had  falsified  the  tenet  of  reprobation ;  that  no  man 
taut^ht  that  God  absolutely  decreed  to  cast  man  away  without  sin  ;  but 
as  he  did  decree  the  end,  so  he  did  the  means ;  that  is,  as  he  predes- 
tinated man  to  death,  so  he  predestinated  him  to  sin,  the  only  way  to 
•ieath  :  and  so  he  mended  the  question,  as  tinkers  mend  kettles,  and 
made  it  worse  than  it  was  before."  Ilales^s  Letters  from  Dorf.  G.  R. 
p.  4.15. 

■  Zanchius  asserts  that  "the  reprobate  are  bound  by  the  ordinance 
of  God  under  the  necessity  of  sinning-;"  Beza,  that  "God  hath  predes- 
tinated, not  only  unto  damnation,  but  also  unto  the  causes  of  it,  whom- 
soever he  saw  meet;"  Perkins,  that  "  God  hath  most  justly  decreed 
even  the  wicked  works  of  the  wicked;"  Knox,  that  **  the  wicked  are 
not  only  left  by  God's  suffering,  but  are  compelled  to  sin  by  his  power;" 
Piscator,  that  "  God  so  absolutely  and  efficaciously  determines  the  will 
of  every  man,  that  he  cannot  do  more  good  than  he  really  does,  nor 
omit  more  evil  than  he  really  omits."^: 

Here  is  Calvinism — pure,  unadulterated  Calvinism,  as  set  forth  by 
its  founder,  and  his  most  distinguished  companions  and  followers. 
Truly,  the  Romish  doctrine  of  merit  was  bad  enough ;  but  Calvinism 
is  worse: — the  former  made  man  his  own  sanctifier,  but  the  latter  re- 
presents God  as  creating  intelligent  beings  in  order  first  to  fit  them 
for  perdition,  and  then  to  plunge  ihem  into  it.  How  lamentable  it  is 
that  the  human  mind  should  so  frequently  pass  from  one  extreme  to 
another  !  And  how  deeply  are  we  indebted,  under  God,  to  the  wisdom 
and  moderation  of  the  illustrious  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England* 


*  InstltiitOR,  Look  ill.  chop.  C-k  f  Ibid.  Imok  iii. 

;j:  For  the  i)assagcs  (juoteil  fiom  Ivnov  and  PerkiiiS,  see  IUvIIm's  Qninqu.irti- 
cnlar  Uistorv,  p;irt  ii.  cliaj).  10,  part  iji.  «;hap.  '-0;  and  for  tliose  from  Zan- 
ehius,  r.i'Z',  and  Piscator,  see  Mant'.s  liamplon  Lt'otnrtf?,  p.  194,  11'5,  196. 
Xot  havin:.»  ronvnieiit  access  to  the  oi  i<;inals,  1  (juote  from  Hey'.in  and  M;fnt, 
who  give  the  titles  rf  the  hook?^,  t'.ic  pai^cs,  and  indectl  the  very  psssi-.gcs  iij 
•^vhich  th.c  f)lno.\ious  sentinieiitf--  aie  advancd. 


294  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII. 

bricator  of  his  own  destiny ;  such  destiny  depend- 
ing upon  the  use  or  abuse  of  the  means  of  grace. 
The  wicked  perish,  not  because  no  Saviour  is 
provided  for  them,  and  no  elTectual  grace  is  ever 
vouchsafed  to  them;  but  because  they  neglect  to 
profit  by  the  grace  which  they  receive,  and  refuse 
to  lay  hold  on  eternal  Hfe  purchased  for  them  by 
the  atoning  sacrifice  of  the  cross.  This  system, 
it  is  easy  to  see,  presents  the  strongest  motives  to 
spiritual  zeal  and  diligence  that  can  possibly  be 
brought  to  act  upon  the  human  mind.  Upon  our- 
selves it  depends  whether  we  shall  be  eternally 
happy,  or  eternally  miserable.  A  Saviour  is  pro- 
vided for  us,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ever  ready  to 
afford  us  all  necessary  assistance.  There  is  no 
absolute  decree  of  God  to  shut  us  out  of  Heaven. 

But,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  salva- 
tion depends  upon  the  eternal  and  unconditional 
decree  of  God.  The  whole  human  race  is  divided 
into  the  two  great  classes  of  elect  and  reprobate, 
the  former  of  whom  will  infallibly  be  saved,  and 
the  latter  infallibly  perish.  The  elect,  for  exam- 
ple, are,  in  due  time,  effectually  called;  that  is, 
they  are  seized  and  converted  by  irresistible 
grace.  Conversion  is  wholly  a  divine  work; 
man  is  absolutely  passive  therein.  The  repro- 
bate, on  the  other  hand,  are  never  eftectually 
called ;  they  cannot  possibly  turn  unto  God ;  they 
must  infallibly  perish;  an  arbitrary  unconditional 
decree  shuts  them  out  of  Heaven. 

AVilh  a  man  who  believes  all  this  there  can  be 
no  possible  motive  for  exertion. 


LKT.  VIII.  OALVINISM.  295 

The  Calviniat  will  naturally  argue  thus: — 
My  salvation  or  coudeinnation  is  immutably  and 
eternally  fixed  by  God  himself.  It  is  in  vain  for  me 
to  strive  and  pray.  If  I  am  one  of  the  elect,  God, 
in  his  good  time,  will  effectually  call  me.  My 
conversion,  if  it  ever  take  place,  will  be  produced 
by  [RRESiSTiBLE  gracc  *,  I  shall  bo  altogether 
passive; — the  work  will  be  wholly  a  divine 
work.*  All  effort  in  me,  therefore,  to  turn  from 
sin  to  holiness,  must  be  both  vain  and  impious; — 
vain,  because  conversion  is  an  affair  in  which 
man  is  entirely  passive ;  impious,  inasmuch  as  it 
would  be  an  attempt  to  effect,  by  my  own  efforts, 
what  I  know  is  effected  exclusively  by  divine 
power.  Thus,  the  primary  operation  of  the  prin- 
ciple in  question,  is  to  produce  stupid  ease  and 
indifference.     There  is  nothing  left  to  rouse  the 

•  Calvinists,  in  consistency  with  the  positive  language  of  the  Westv 
minster  Standards,  represent  conversion  as  the  work  of  God  alone. 
They  tell  us,  in  so  many  words,  that  man  is  absolutely  passive  in  the 
change.  The  principle  will  be  found,  in  all  its  strictness,  in  the  Chris- 
tian's Magazine.  "  All  these  doctrines  may  be  summed  up  in  that 
one  grand,  fundamental,  essential  truth,  of  a  radical,  total  change  of 
heart  by  the  almighty  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this  change,  the 
principles  of  spiritual  life  are  implanted  in  the  sinner,  so  that  he  arises 
from  his  death  of  sin,  and  walks  before  God  in  nexmess  of  life.  The 
change  itself  is  -wrought  by  God — the  sinner  is  the  jiere  recipient."^ 
Here  the  whole  work  of  conversion  and  sanctification  is  represented  as 
performed  by  the  almighty  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  individual 
himself  does  not  co-operate,  in  the  slightest  degree,  in  the  change 
which  he  undergoes.  He  is  a  mere  passive  recipient  of  irresistible- 
grace;  and  is  just  as  much,  therefore,  an  inert  lump  of  matter,  as  any 
piece  of  mechanism  framed  by  the  hand  of  man,  and  constantly  kept 
in  motion  by  the  application  of  physical  force. 

t  Christian's  Magaziae,  vol  frt.  p.  0.?. 


296  CALVINISM,  LET.  VIJI. 

human  mind  into  action.  But  the  moment  you 
admit  that  sufficient  grace  is  given  to  all  to  enable 
them  to  turn  to  God,  and  that  conversion  is  a  work 
in  which  the  agency  of  man  must  co-operate  with 
divine  grace,  you  present  the  subject  in  a  point  of 
light  calculated  to  touch  the  most  anxious  and 
most  powerful  feelings  of  the  soul.  Man  has 
something  to  do;  it  rests  with  himself  to  improve 
the  grace  vouchsafed,  by  turning  unto  God,  and 
thus  securing  eternal  life;  or  to  abuse  it  by  per- 
severing in  wickedness,  and  thus  sealing  his  per- 
dition. 

Thus,  w^hile  the  Calvinist  may  suppose  that  his 
conversion  has  not  yet  taken  pla  e,  the  genuine 
principles  of  this  system  will  lead  him  to  wait, 
with  perfect  tranquillity,  until   God's  time  shall 
arrive.     His  own  efforts,   he  knows,  can  neither 
hasten  nor  retard  a  period  fixed  by  an  eternal  and 
immutable  decree; — nay,   as  he  is  to  be  wholly 
passive  in  the  change,  any  effort  to  turn  from  sin 
to  holiness  would  not  only  be  absurd,  but  could 
be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  that  of  an  at- 
tempt to  alter  what  God  has  unchangeably  or- 
dained, and  to  effect,  by  his  own  co-operation, 
what  is  produced  exclusively  by  the  irresistible 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.    The  man  has  no  more 
concern  in  his  conversion  than  a  block  of  marble 
has  in  its  transformation  into  an  elegant  statue. 
The  marble  undergoes  a  change;  the  man  under- 
goes a  change.    The  marble  is  altogether  passive : 
the   man  is   altogether  passive.     The   marble   is 
<:han^ed  solely  by  the  operation  of  human  hands ; 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISW.  297 

the  man  is  changed  solely  by  the  operation  of  tlie 
divine  power.  What  dill'erence  is  theie,  then,  be- 
tween the  man  and  the  marble?  To  talk  of  a 
genuine  Calvinist,  who  really  acts  ii|)()n  his  prin- 
ciples, being  solicitous  as  to  his  conversion,  or 
striving  to  forsake  his  evil  ways,  is  just  as  ridicul- 
ous as  to  talk  of  a  block  of  marble  striving  to  be 
changed  into  a  finished  production  of  art.  AVhat 
can  be  more  truly  absurd  than  the  idea  of  a  man, 
who  knows  he  must  be  absolutely  passive  in  an 
operation,  labouring  to  accomplish  that  operation 
by  his  own  active  power! 

I  repeat  it,  then,  a  consistent  Calvinist,  who 
supposes  that  his  conversion  has  not  yet  taken 
place,  will  give  himself  no  trouble  about  the  mat- 
ter, but  wait  as  patiently  for  the  transforming 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  block  of  marble 
will  wait  for  that  human  operation  which  is  to 
strip  it  of  its  rudeness,  and  invest  it  with  artificial 
beauty. 

Further — Let  us  suppose  a  Calvinist,  at  some 
unusually  serious  moment,  to  imagine  that  the 
period  of  his  conversion  has  actually  arrived.  He 
will  argue  thus: — I  am  one  of  the  elect;  it  is  ab- 
solutely impossible,  therefore,  that  I  should  pe- 
rish:— God  has  chosen  me  from  all  eternity  by  an 
unconditional  decree,  and  no  human  act  can  pos- 
sibly frustrate  his  decision  in  my  favour. 

Do  you  inform  him  that  no  one  without  holiness 
can  see  the  Lord?  His  answer  is  ready — The 
decree  of  God  is  absolute  and  infallible:  Christ 
])ath  expressly  declared  that  not  one  of  the  elect 

.18  ' 


2$$  CALVINISM.  LET.  VUU 

shall  ever  be  plucked  out  of  his  hand;  if  I  fall 
into  gross  sin,  God  will  surely  restore  me; — in 
fact,  the  elect  cannot  finally  be  otherwise  than 
holy. 

Thus  docs  this  wretched  system  of  doctrine  de- 
stroy all  the  motives  to  spiritual  diligence.  A 
Calvinist,  who  supposes  that  he  has  not  yet  been 
converted^  will,  of  course,  wait  patiently  for  the 
arrival  of  the  appointed  time;  knowing  that  con- 
version is  a  business  in  which  he  must  be  alto- 
gether passive :  a  Calvinist,  who  supposes  that  he 
has  been  actually  converted^  will  feel  confident  of 
salvation ;  it  being  the  leading  doctrine  of  his 
creed  that  the  elect  can  never  perish:^ — So  that 

•  Neal,  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans,  informs  us  that  Oliver  Crom- 
well, when  he  was  on  his  death  bed,  asked  Ur.  Goodwin,  -whether  a 
man  could  fall  from  grace?  Upon  receiving  an  answer  in  the  neg-ative, 
Cromwell  replied,  "  Then  I  am  safe,  for  I  am  sure  I  was  once  in  a 
ftate  of  grace.'* 

When  the  injurious  tendency  of  their  system  is  urged  upon  Calvinists, 
they  frequently  defend  themselves  by  saying  that  the  decree  of  God  to 
save,  according  to  their  doctrine,  is  always  accompanied  with  a  decree 
to  sanctify ;  so  that  the  only  evidence  which  a  man  can  have  that  he  is 
one  of  the  elect,  must  be  derived  from  the  holiness  of  his  heart  and  life 
This  answer,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  not  without  a  degree  of  force. 
The  qualification  of  the  doctrine  of  election  in  this  way,  certainly  tends 
to  guard  ligainst  its  evil  effects  :  Still,  however,  the  operation  of  the 
doctrine  cannot  be  otherwise  than  pernicious.  How  apt  is  self-love  to 
blind  the  understanding !  There  is  no  point  on  which  men  are  so  prone 
to  deceive  themselves  as  that  of  their  spiritual  condition.  Let  it  be 
received  as  an  unquestionable  truth,  that  the  human  race  is  divided 
into  the  two  great  classes  of  elect  and  reprobate,  by  an  eternal  decree, 
founded  on  no  foresight  of  the  gnali/i cations  of  the  creature,  but  entirely 
arbitrary,  and  men  of  warm  imaginations  and  forward  tempers,  if  they 
at  any  time  take  a  religious  turn,  will  seldom  fail  to  imagine  themselves 
within  the  decree  of  election;  while  persons  of  a  different  cast  of  cha- 
racter will  be  no  less  apt  to  think  themselves  of  the  number  of  the  re- 
probate, and,  therefore,  without  hope.    Men  of  a  certain  temperament,. 


LET.  Vni.  CALVINISM.  299 

indolence  in  the  first  instance,  and  security  in  the 
last,  are  the  genuine  fruits  of  the  system. 

v€n'  easily  persuade  themselves  that  they  are  religious,  while  the  worst 
passions  rankle  in  their  hearts,  and  even  while  open  violations  of  the 
law  of  God  disgrace  tlieir  lives.  The  supposed  decree  of  election  seta 
the  imagination  at  work;  and  this,  under  the  stimulating-  influence  of 
self-love,  will  almost  always  lead  the  individual  to  a  favourable  conclu- 
sion on  the  subject  of  his  spiritual  state. 

But  see  how  even  the  modern  teachers  of  Calvinism  can  talk! 

"  Every  idea  of  moral  goodness,  as  a  qualification  for  obtaining  par- 
<lon,  mercy,  and  peace  from  God,  is  done  away."*  "  No  demerit  on  the 
part  of  believers  can  arise  to  defeat  the  operation  of  Cod's  grace."f 
"  The  present  life  is  not  a  life  of  probation  and  trial."t  "  All  that  the 
Father  giveth.  Not  one,  or  two,  or  ten  tliousand :  but  ALL.  And 
they  shall  come.  What,  if  they  do  such  and  such  duties  ?  Not  a  word 
of  the  kind.  What,  if  tliey  perform  such  obligations  ?  Not  a  syllable 
like  it.  It  is  an  absolute  promise  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  founded  in  his  own 
absolute  power.  Here  are  neither  ifs  nor  buts.  No  conditions  nor 
terms.  They  shall  come :  and  if  they  themselves  will  not,  the  Lord 
will  make  them  imlling  in  the  day  of  his  power  "J 

"  As  it  was  not  any  loveliness  in  elect  persons  which  moved  God  to 
love  them  at  first,  so  neither  shall  their  unlovely  backslidings  deprive 
them  of  it."|j 

"  Suppose  a  believer  to  be  taken  away  in  his  sin,  and  hath  not  time 
to  repent  of  it,  there  was  that  in  him  that  would  have  repented,  and 
God  reckons  of  a  man  according  to  that  he  would  do.*'  "  Though  a 
believer  be  black  as  hell,  polluted  with  guilt,  defiled  with  sin,  yet  ia 
Christ  he  is  all  fair  without  a  spot;  free  from  sin,  as  viewed  by  Cod  ia 
Christ,  fully  reconciled  to  God,  and  standing  without  trespasses  before 
him."^ 

"  God  did  not  barely  suffer,  but  positively  intended  and  decreed 
them,  (the  reprobate)  to  continue  in  their  natural  blindness  and  hard* 
ness  of  heart."  **  He  does  not  only  negatively  withhold  from  the 
wicked  his  grace,  which  alone  can  restrain  them  from  evil ;  but  occa- 
sionally, in  the  course  of  his  providence,  he  puts  them  into  circum- 
stances of  temptation,  such  as  shall  cause  the  persons  so  tempted  ac- 
tually to  turn  aside  from  the  path  of  duty  to  commit  sin."    "  The  sen- 

•  Hawker's  Prop  to  Despair, p.  1 1.  f  Hawker's  Zion's  Pilgiini,  p  fiO. 

%  Hawker's  Zion's  Pilgi-im,  p.  iCO.  k)  Hawktr's  I'rop  to  Despair,  p.  15, 16. 

il  Coles  on  Cod's  Sovereignty,  edited  hy  Koiiinine,  p.  ^1)4. 
1[  Mason's  spiritual  Trcasur>',  edited  and  reeommended  by  Romainc,  p.  1  il 
and  20G. 


300  CALVINISM.  LET.   VIIK 

The  anti-Calvinistic  system,  on  the  other  hand, 
represents  the  whole  process  of  sanctification  as 

tence  of  Gjd,  which  rejects  the  reprobates,  is  so  fixed  and  immutable, 
tbit  it  is  impossible  they  should  he  saved,  though  they  have  performed 
all  tlie  works  of  the  saints:  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  true,  that  those 
vthn  perish  throuj^h  their  own  fault,  misrht  have  been  saved  throu.^h 
grace,  if  they  had  not  ceased  labouring  for  saving  grace." 

"  The  salvation  of  every  one  of  the  elect  is  certain,  and  can  by  no 
me  ins  be  prevented."* 

-  "  David  stood  as  completely  justified  in  the  everlasting  righteousness 
of  Christ  at  the  time  when  he  caused  Uriah  to  be  murdered,  and  was 
committing  adultery  with  his  wife,  as  he  was  in  any  part  of  his  life. 
For  all  the  sins  of  the  elect,  be  they  more,  or  be  they  less,  be  they  past, 
present,  or  to  come,  v'ere  for  ever  done  away.  So  that  every  one  of 
the  St'-,  elect  stand  spotless  in  the  sight  of  God."f 

"  If  Christ  has  fulfilled  the  whole  law,  and  borne  the  curse,  then  all 
debts  and  cl  .ims  against  his  people,  be  they  more  or  be  they  less,  be 
they  small  or  be  they  great,  be  they  before  or  be  they  after  conversion, 
are  for  ever  and  for  ever  cancelled.  All  trespasses  are  forgiven  them. 
Taey  are  justified  from  all  things.  They  already  have  everlasting  life."^ 
"  Though  I  believe  that  David's  sin  displeased  the  Lord,  must  I  there- 
fore believe  that  David's  person  was  under  the  curse  of  the  law? 
Surely  no.  Like  Ephraim,  he  was  still  a  pleasant  child:  though  he  went 
on  fi-owardly,  he  did  not  lose  the  character  of  the  man  after  God's  own 
heart."$  "  Nt  faults  or  backslidings  in  God's  children  can  ever  bring 
them  again  under  condemnation,  because  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life 
in  Ciirist  Jesus  hatti  made  them  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."|j 

Sucli,  after  all,  is  the  true,  unsophisticated  conclusion  from  tlie  doc- 
trine of  absolute  decrees.  It  is  proper,  nevertheless,  to  state,  that  many 
piirsons  who  call  themselves  Calvinists  would  be  far  from  sanctioning 
the  language  contained  in  the  preceding  extracts.  Viewing  it,  however, 
ns  nothing  more  than  a  fair  exposition  of  the  consequences  which  result 
from  the  Calvinistic  theory,  we  cannot  but  regard  the  persons  just 
alluded  to  as  shrinking  from  the  horrors  of  their  own  system. 

Such,  too,  is  tiie  weakness  of  our  nature,  that  we  sometimes  meet 
with  men  of  real  piety,  whose  principles  nevertheless  lead  directly  and 

•  Tooldcly  on  Pre.lesti nation,  p.  53.  See  also  "  The  Result  of  fiilse  Piinn- 
pl-s.  or  '-irrnr  cnnvicl*-^!  Iry  its  own  KviiUnce,  extracterl  fi om  the  original  of 
Dr    'Vomath,  sometime  Lord  Bisho])  of  St.  David's.''    Kdit.  1790,  p.  78. 

t  M-.  U-  Jlill. 

i  quoted  from  Su'  Richard  Hill,  in  Fletcher's  Tliiit'.  Ch^ck  to  Antinouii- 
BJUiism,  p.  8->.  $  Ibid.  p.  T'^i.  ||  Ibid.  p.  80. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  301 

the  joint  work  of  man,  anil  of  tho  Holy  Spirit. 
God  does  not  act  irresistibly  upon  the  human 
mind;  his  influence  is  exerted  in  a  way  which  re- 
(|uircs  our  own  co-operation;  and  unh.'ss  we  sin- 
cerely and  zealously  co-operate,  we  must  perish. 
The  anti-Calvinist,  then,  can  never,  consistently 
with  his  principles,  sit  down  and  indolently  wait 
until  his  heart  shall  be  chani^ed  by  the  almiiihty 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  and,  when  he  may  have 
reason  to  suppose  that  his  heart  has  underg;one  a 
real  change,  he  cannot  flatter  himself  with  the 
idea  that  his  salvation  is  absolutely  secure;  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  infallible  perseverance  of  the 
saints  he  rejects  as  equally  unscriptural  and  ab- 
surd. 

But,  if  the  tendency  of  the  Calvinistic  system 
be  such  as  I  have  described  it,  how  happens  it 
that  many  of  its  professors  are  scrupulously  dili- 
gent in  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace?  The  an- 
swer is  easy.     Calvinism  has  often  produced  all 


strong-ly  to  the  grossest  licentiousness  of  practice.  To  use  the  words 
of  a  late  excellent  writer — "  Some  minds  indeed  there  may  be,  and 
such  unquestionably  thei*e  are,  of  superior  quality,  whose  love  ol  God 
is  too  devout,  and  their  piety  too  ardent,  to  suffer  them  to  use  their 
tenets  as  a  license  for  carelessness  or  immorality;  and  who  nmain, 
as  Tully  testified  of  the  disciples  of  Epicurus,  virtuous  in  spite  of 
their  principles."*  But  what  must  be  the  effect  of  the  language  in 
question  upon  the  minds  of  the  g-enerality  of  men !  Calvinism  will 
ultimately  lead,  through  a  deplorable  bigotry,  to  a  licentious  scep- 
ticism. If  Christianity  were  never  exhibited  in  any  other  than  a  Cal- 
vinistic shape,  the  whole  Christian  world  would,  sooner  or  later,  be- 
come infidel. 

*  Mant  in  his  Banipton  Lectures;  to  -which  the  reader  is  refciTed  for  the 
passages  died  in  the  above  note,  ii.  134  to  1  ii. 


302  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIIL 

the  practical  effects  which  have  been  mentioned; 
and  these  effects  would  always  flow  from  it,  were 
there  not,  happily,  a  strong  counteracting  princi- 
ple in  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind.  The 
Calvinistic  doctrines  are  repa2;nant  to  common 
sense.  They  contradict  the  irresistible  feelings  of 
our  nature. 

The  Calvinist  believes  that  the  elect  are  mdivi- 
dually  ascertained  by  an  eternal  and  immutable 
decree  of  God;  that  their  conversion  is  effected, 
at  the  ordained  moment,  by  irresistible  grace;  and 
that  this  grace  will  infallibly  preserve  them  from 
perishing.     In  all  this  system  man  is  evidently  an 
inert  being;  he  does  nothing  toward  his  conversion, 
or  toward  his  eventual  perseverance;  the  whole 
is  the  sovereign  and  unconditional  work  of  God. 
But,  while  the  force  of  prejudice  leads  the  Cal- 
vinist, in  speculation,  to  one  conclusion;  the  un- 
conquerable dictates  of  nature  lead  him,  in  prac- 
tice, to  another.    He  is  conscious  of  a  power  over 
his  conduct.     He  feels  that  he  was  intended  for 
an  active  being.     He  is  prompted  by  the  very  con- 
stitution of  his  nature,  as  well  as  by  the  positive 
commands  of  Scripture,   to    use   the   means   of 
grace. 

Thus  the  baneful  tendency  of  the  system  in 
question  is,  in  a  degree,  corrected  and  controled 
by  the  structure  of  the  human  mind.* 


•  Calvlnists  do  not,  generally  speaking,  openly  deny  the  liberty  of 
man ;  indeed,  they  will  admit  him  to  be  a  free  agent ;  but  the  admis- 
sion  turns  out,  sooner  or  later,  to  be  merely  verbal.  A  free  agent,  who 
IS  absolutely  passive  in  conversion,  and  whose  perseverance  in  grace 


LET.  vin. 


CALVINISM.  303 


Whenever  men  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  embrace 
a  doctrine   which  is  contrary  to  common  sense, 


depends  solely  upon  the  immutability  of  the  decree  of  election !    A  free 
agent,  wl»o  is  determined  to  that  which  is  good,  and  effectually  drawn  to 
Jesus  Christ,  by  almightv  power !     A   free  agent,  who  is  the  subject 
of  irresistible  grace  !    Of  what  value  is  a  liberty  thus  fettered  ?    What 
would  you  think  of  a  man  who  should  so  load  you  with  chains  that 
you  could  not  move  a  muscle  of  your   body,    and  then  tell  you  to 
rise  and  walk?     If,  in   our  conversion  from  sin  to  holiness,  we  are 
absolutely  passive,  and  if  our  perseverance  in  the  ways  of  righteous- 
ness depends  altogether  upon  the  divine  decree,    where  is  our  free- 
dom of  choice,  or  of  action  ?     But  many  distinguished  Calvinists  posi- 
tively deny  liberty  of  cuoTrx;  the  only  liberty  which  they  admit  lies  in 
the  power  of  acting  according  to  choice.    Thus  our  choice  is  determined 
by  necessity  :  in  other  words,  we  have  no  choice.     Now,  if  the  deter- 
mination of  the  will  be  out  of  our  power,  the  act  consequent  upon  such 
determination  must  be  so  too.     The  determination  of  the  will  is  the 
first  part  of  the  act,  and  that  upon  which  its  moral  character  wholly 
depends.     But,  according  to  the  theory  in  question,  the  determination 
of  the  will  does  not  depend  upon  ourselves,  but  upon  something  not 
under  our  control.     Then  the  act  does  not  depend  upon  ourselves,  but 
upon  a  foreign  cause.     We  deliberate  whether  we  shall  perform  a  par- 
ticular action — we  finally  determine  to  perform  it — the  performance 
follows.     Now,  constituted  as  we  are,  the  power  of  determination  is 
the  power  of  performance  ;  the  author  of  the  determination  is  of  course 
the  author  of  the  action.     There  can  be  no  control  over  the  action, 
where  there  is  none  over  the  determination.     Jl  determines  to  kill  S  ;. 
he  has  no  power  to  determine  to  do  it,  or  to  determine  not  to  do  it ;  he 
cannot  possibly  avoid  the  determination  to  commit  murder.    In  what 
then  consists  his  liberty  ?    Why,  simply  in  the  power  to  carry  the  de- 
termination into  effect.     The  liberty  of  .4,  in  this  case,  therefore,  lies 
simply  in  a  physical  power  to  kill  B/  and  it  is  precisely  the  liberty 
which  a  musket  ball  possesses.    The  ball  flies  upon  the  pulling  of  the 
trigger  ;  and  Jl  strikes  B  with  a  deadly  weapon  upon  his  will  being  de- 
termined to  do  so.    The  ball  has  just  as  much  control  over  the  trigger, 
as  A  has  over  the  determination  to  kill  B;  and  the  kilhng  of  B  is  not 
less  certainly  the  result  of  the  determination  of  A  to  kill  him,  than  the 
flying  of  the  ball  is  the  result  of  the  pulling  of  the  trigger. 

Thus,  this  liberty,  not  of  choosing,  but  of  acting  according  to  choice^ 
is  not  a  power  to  act,  but  simply  a  capacity  to  be  acted  upon. 

The  advocates  of  the  doctrine  which  denies  to  man  all  power  over  the 
dct^minatioiw  of  his  will,  assert  that  the  rery  supposition  of  such  a 


o04  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIII 

their  practice  must  always  more  or  less  contradict 
their  theory.  Berkeley  and  Hume  denied  the  ex- 
istence of  a  material  world ;— still  they  acted  like 
other  people;  taking  for  granted,  in  the  general 
course  of  their  conduct,  the  very  fact  which  they 
la  joured  so  strenuously  in  speculation  to  disprove. 
Just  so  it  is  with  the  Calvinist.  He  will  insist  that 
man  is  absolutely  passive  in  conversion;  and  that, 
after  conversion,  he  cannot  permanently  fall  from 
grace;  being  preserved  by  the  almighty  and  irre- 
sistible power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Still  he  acts, 
commonly,  as  if  his  salvation  depended,  in  some 
degree,  upon  his  own  efforts.  He  uses  the  means 
of  grace — he  strives  and  prays.  But  what  can  be 
the. meaning  of  this,  if  we  are,  in  the  first  instance, 
converted  by  irresistible  grace,  and  then  infallibly 
preserved  by  omnipotent  power?  Thus  it  is  that 
the  demoralizing  tendency  of  Calvinism  is,  in  a 
degree,  corrected  by  its  very  absurdity. 

Your  remaining  observations,  under  this  head,  1 
must  notice  more  briefly. 


power  InTolves  an  absurdity  and  a  contradiction.  A  power  over  the  di- 
terminatioas  of  ttie  will,  s^y  they,  is  a  power  to  will  a  thing  if  we  will; 
so  that  every  determination  must  necessarily  imply  a  prior  determina.- 
tion,  thus  running  on  to  infinity;  which  is  absurd.  But  this  is  nothing 
more  than  a  pi  ^y  upon  words.  The  determination  of  my  will  is  an  effect 
which  must  have  a  cause;  either  I  am  the  cause»  or  some  other  being 
is  the  cause.  1  he  one  proposition  is  just  as  conceivable,  and  just  a.s 
free  from  contradiction  and  absurdity  as  the  other. 

Again,  it  has  been  said,  nothing  is  in  our  power  but  what  depends 
upon  the  will ;  of  course  the  will  itself  cannot  be  in  our  power.  Hut  if 
we  have  power  over  what  depends  upon  the  will,  we  mtist  have  power 
over  the  will  itself;  otherwise  we  may  have  power  over  the  cTuf,  an<^ 
-ynX  owcT  iht  necessartj  means ;  which  is  a  contradiction. 


I.ET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  ^05, 

"  Another  objection  is  equally  common  and 
popular.  It  is  said,  if  none  but  the  elect  will  be 
iiavetl,  how  can  God  be  considered  as  sincere  in 
making  the  oflers  of  mercy  to  ail?  The  Arminian 
is  just  as  much  bound  to  answer  this  question  as 
the  Calvinist.  He  grants  that  all  men  will  not,  in 
fact,  be  saved ;  he  grants,  moreover,  that  God 
foreknew  this  from  eternity ;  and  that  li>2  not  only 
ioxeknew  ihQ  general  fact ;  but  also  the  particular 
persons  who  will,  and  who  will  not,  partake  of 
salvalion.  How^,  then,  we  may  ask  the  Arminian, 
is  God  sincere,  on  his  plaii,  in  urging  and  entreat- 
ing all  to  accept  of  mercy?"* 

The  Calvinists  tell  us  that  God,  by  an  eternal 
and  unconditional  decree,  hath  ordained  one  part 
of  the  human  race  to  happiness,  and  the  rest 
to  misery;  that  no  Saviour  is  provided  for  the 
latter,  and  that  no  effectual  grace  is  given  to 
them.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  for  them,  then, 
to  repent,  and  be  saved.  The  impossibility, 
too,  arises  from  the  decree  of  God  ;t  ibr  he  brings 

*  Continuation  of  LetterSj  p.  336,  337^ 

J  The  doctrine,  that  we  come  into  the  world  Under  the  burden  of  ac- 
tual guilt,  for  which  it  would  be  perfectly  just  in  God  instantly  to  coii- 
sign  us  to  eternal  despair,  is  as  diabolical  as  it  is  absurd.  It  is  the  ex- 
press doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  that  infants 
are  divided  into  elect  and  reprobate,  and  that  the  latter,  in  consequence 
ef  the  sin  of  Adara,  which  is  made  their  sin  by  imputation,  indiscri- 
minately perish.  Such  is  the  horrible  principle  which  Calvinists  have 
invented  as  a  necessary  basis  for  that  arbitrary  decree  which  sends 
some  unconditionally  to  Heaven,  and  others  unconditionally  to  Hell. 
Common  sense  tells  us  that  infants  can  have  contracted  no  positive 
guilt.  It  is  evidently  impossible  that  the  sin  of  one  man  should  be- 
come the  proper  and  personal  sin  of  another.  The  disobedience  of 
Adam  could  no  more  be  made  to  bring  posiUve  guilt  upon  his  posterity, 

59 


SOS  CALVINISM.  LIT.  VIII. 

them  into  the  world  with  a  corrupt  nature,  and 
withholds    from    them    that    assistance    without 
which  they  must  inevitably  perish.     In  short,  he 
invites  them  to   partake  of  eternal  life,  and  yet 
has  doomed  them,  by  an  unconditional  decree,  to 
eternal  death.     Is  not  this  the  very  essence  both 
of  falsehood  and  of  cruelty  ?    But,  upon  the  anti- 
Calvinistic  system,  a  Saviour  is  provided  for  all 
men,  and   elTectual    grace  is  vouchsafed   to   all. 
The  way  to  Heaven  is  not  barred  up  by  an  uncon- 
ditional decree.     God  not  only  invites  but  enables 
all  to  come  to  him.     He  does  not  pass  an  immu- 
table and  irresistible  decree  that  certain  indivi- 
duals shall  peribh,  and  then  call  upon  those  very 
individuals  to  defeat  the  omnipotence  of  his  power, 
and  live.     Upon  the  anti-Calvinistic  system,  all 
is  consistent ;  all  is  full  of  mercy  and  truth.    None 
perish^but  they  who  obstinately  refuse  to  be  saved ; 
and  none  refuse  to  be  saved  because  God  withholds 
from  them  the  efficacious  assistance  of  his  Spirit. 
Whereas,  Calvin  represents  the  Divine  Being  as 
decreeing   the    damnation   of   the   reprobate,    as 
blinding  their  understandings  and  hardening  their 
hearts,  to  fit  them  for  their  doom,  at  the  very  time 
that  he  is  addressing  to  them  the  most  importu- 
nate calls  of  mercy. 

The  anti-Calvinist  admits  that  God  foreknows 
all  things.  But  is  there  no  difference  between 
foreknowing   that  men  will  abuse  the  means  of 

than  a  thinp  could  be  made  to  he  and  not  to  be  at  the  same  time.  In 
both  of  these  cases  a  contradiction  is  necessarily  involved ;  they  are  of 
eour&e  no  objects  of  power. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM*  *^07 

grace,  and  ordaining  thai  ihey  shall  abuse  them ; 
between  foreknowing  that  tlicy  will  perish,  and 
ordaining  that  they  shall  perish  ?  God  exists  with- 
out reference  to  time  and  space ;  he  filleth  im> 
mensity,  and  inhabiteth  eternity;  past  and  future 
have  no  meaning  when  applied  to  him.  Any  dif- 
ficulty, therefore,  which  may  exist  in  reconciling 
the  prescience  of  God  with  the  free  agency  ot 
man,  arises  from  our  limited  view  of  things  in 
reasoning  from  human  to  divine  power,*     But  if, 

*  There  has  been  great  dispute  on  the  question  whether  it  be  possi- 
ble that  free  actions  should  be  foreseen,  if  the  question  be  determined 
in  the  negative,  it  will  follow  either  that  the  Deity  dots  not  foresee  his 
own  actions,  or  that  he  is  not  a  free  agent.  But  we  know  that  God  is 
both  a  free,  and  an  omniscient  being;  it  follows,  irresistibly,  that  free 
actions  are  capable  of  being  foreseen. 

Are  we  able  to  give  any  reason  for  supposing  that  a  contingent  event 
may  not  be  foreseen,  but  that  we  cannot  exactly  understand  how  it 
can  be  foreseen  ?  This  is  a  reason,  however,  which  supposes  human 
power  tobe  upon  a  level  with  divine.  Can  we  exactly  understand  or  con- 
ceive how  God  knows  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  ?  And  shall  we  draw 
the  conclusion  that  he  does  not  know  them  ?  Can  we  form  any  clear 
conception  how  God  created  the  universe  without  materials  out  of 
■which  to  create  it  I  No — And  this  very  circumstance  led  the  ancient 
philosophers,  universally,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  matter. 

God  foresees  all  events,  and  as  we  cannot  conceive  or  understand  how 
contingent  events  should  be  foreseen,  it  follows  that  all  events  are  ne- 
cessary. 

God  formed  the  universe,  and  as  we  cannot  conceive  or  understand 
bow  he  could  form  it  without  materials  out  of  which  to  form  it,  it  fol- 
lows that  such  materials  had  existed  from  eternity. 

Such,  when  properly  analyzed,  is  the  philosophy  of  the  ancient  spe- 
culations relative  to  the  eternity  of  matter,  and  of  the  modern  specu- 
lations about  the  consistency  of  freedom  witli  prescience. 

The  ancient  philosophers  found  no  difficulty  in  admitting  that  God 
might  create  the  universe  if  furnished  with  materials.  Man  has  a  power 
similar  to  this — He  can  erect  a  house  if  you  give  him  the  materials  for 
the  purpose ;  and  he  therefore  readily  conceiveb  tliat  the  Deity  may,  in 
the  same  war,  have  erecied  the  universe.    It  is  only  the  exercise  of  a 


.-^O^  CALVimSAI.  LET.  YUl. 

as  the  Calvinists  tell  us,  God  has  eternally  aad 
unchangeably  ordained  every  thing  that  comes  to 

power  similar  in  kind  to  that  of  the  exercise  of  which  he  is  conscious 
in  himself.  But  having  no  power  of  positive  creation,  he  can  form  no 
clear  conception  of  the  exercise  of  such  a  power,  and  so  is  prone  to  re- 
gard an  act  of  positive  creation  as  impossible. 

In  the  same  way,  we  readily  admit  that  God  may  foresee  necessary 
events,  inasmuch  as  we  are  able  to  calculate  exactly  events  that  arc  to 
be  brouj^ht  about  by  mechanical  operation  ;  but  having-  no  ficulty  by 
whic'ii  we  can,  with  absolute  certainty,  penetrate  conting-ent  events,  we 
find  it  difticult  to  conceive  of  such  a  faculty  in  any  being-,  and  so  are 
apt  to  draw  the  ^conclusion,  that  prescience  and  contingency  cannot 
exist  togetlier. 

If,  then,  we  are  to  conclude  that  all  events  happen  m  the  way  of  ne- 
cessity, because  we  cannot  conceive  how  conting-ent  events  should  be 
foreseen,  we  must  equnUy  conclude  that  God  formed  the  universe  out 
of  pre-existing  materials,  because   we  cannot  conceive  how  he  should 
have  formed  it  without  tliem.    The  fallacy,  in  each  case,  lies  in  mea- 
suring- divine  by  liuman  power;  in  making  our  capacity  of  conceiving 
or  understanding  hoxv  a  thing  is  to  be  done,  the  test  of  its  possibility 
with  God ;  a  mode  of  reasoning  which  would  plunge  us  at  once  into 
atheism,  indeed  into  universal  scepticism.     The  phenomena  of  the  ma- 
terial  world  are  facts  which  we  are  capable  of  ascertaining  and  classing 
by  attentive  observation ;  but  how  these  phenomena  are  produced  we 
know  not.     We  know  that  they  are  produced  by  an  efficient  cause ;  but 
the  manner  in  which  this  efficient  cause  produces  them,  is  a  mysterv' 
which  we  have  no  faculties  that  will  enable  us  to  penetrate.    How  does 
the  grass  grow  in  the  field  ?     How  does  the  acorn  spring  into  the  oak, 
or  the  boy  into  the  man  ?     We  have  nothing  to  do  here  but  confess  our 
ignorance.     And  the  remark  will  hold  with  respect  to  all  the  physical 
phenomena  which  fall  under  our  observation.    In  the  same  way,  we  are 
conscious  that  we  hear,  see,  remember,  reason ;  but  how  we  perform 
these  operations  we  are  utterly  ignorant.'    So  that  if  we  make  our  ca- 
pacity distinctly  to  conceive  or  understand  how  an  operation   is  per- 
formed, the  criterion  of  its  possibility,  we  lay  down  a  principle  which 
must  lead  us  to  deny  the  reality  of  all  the  phenomena  both  of  the  pliy. 
aical  and  the  mental  world ;  a  degree  of  scepticism  never  reached  even 
>jy  the  chief  of  sceptics,  Mr.  Hume.    He  denied  the  existence  of  matter 
and  of  mind,  but  still  admitted  the  reality  of  those  ideas  and  impres- 
sions which  are  the  objects  of  consciousness. 

God  foresees  the  future  free  actions  of  man — God  formed  the  uni- 
verse oat  of  nothing..   There  is  no  palpable  contradiction  in  these  pro- 


LET.  Till.  CALVIN  1S!VT.  309 

pass,  it  is  a  complete  contrad'ction  to  talk  of  free 
agency.  The  two  tilings  are  utterly  inconsistent. 
If  God  has  ordained,  by  an  irrcsistUde  decree, 
that  certain  individuals  shall  commit  certain  sins, 
and  perish,  no  choice  is  left  to  those  individuals. 
They  must  commit  the  sins — they  must  perish. 
To  deny  this  conclusion,  is  to  give  to  man  the 
power  of  defeating  the  omnipotence  of  God ; — 
to  admit  the  conclusion,  is  to  renounce  the  doc- 
trine of  free  agency  altogether. 

Upon  the  anti-Calvinistic  system,  then,  I  re- 
peat it,  God  may  well  be  supposed  to  urge  his 
creatures  to  turn  unto  him  and  live.  He  has  put 
salvation  within  their  reach.     But  the  Calvinistic 


positions  which  leads  the  human  mind  immediately  to  reject  them  as 
impossible  and  absurd.  The  whole  is  superior  to  the  sum  of  its  parts 
— A  thing-  may  be  and  not  be  at  the  same  time.  Here  we  see  absurdity 
at  once;  w^e  find  it  absolutely  impossible  to  yield  our  belief  But  with 
respect  to  the  propositions — God  foresees  the  free  actions  of  man — God 
formed  the  universe  out  of  nothing- — the  whole  of  our  difficulty  is  that 
of  conceiving-  or  understanding-  how  the  operations  which  they  ascribe 
to  the  Deity  are  performed;  and  we  find  difficulty  in  this,  simply  be- 
cause we  never  perform  such  operations  ourselves.  If  we  were  desti- 
tute of  the  faculty  of  memory,  we  should  find  it  equally  difficult  to 
conceive  liow  God  should  be  able  to  remember  the  past.  We  can  no 
more  tell,  indeed,  hoTo  God  remembers  tlie  past,  than  ho-w  he  foresees 
the  future;  but  being  perfectly  familiar  with  the  act  of  remembrance, 
there  seems  no  mystery  about  it ;  we  are  led  to  think  we  understand 
perfectly  Ao-a»  it  is  performed;  while  the  infallible  foresight  of  future 
contingences,  being  an  act  of  mind  of  which  we  have  no  experience, 
we  are  apt,  at  first  view,  to  be  staggered  and  perplexed  with  it  as  a 
thing  impossible.  Bui,  upon  reflection,  we  perceive  that  the  whole 
difficulty  is  resolvable  into  our  own  ignorance;  that  this  ignorance,  in 
fact,  extends  equally  to  the  mode  in  which  those  mental  operations  are 
performed  with  which  we  are  perfectly  familiar;  and  that  we  really 
deceive  ourselves  when  we  suppose  that  we  knoT  more  about  the  otie 
than  the  other. 


310  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIU. 

system  can  never  be  reconciled  with  that  inviola- 
ble sincerity  vvhich  is  essential  to  the  Divine  na- 
ture. Upon  this  system,  as  has  been  already  ob- 
served, God  ordains  a  certain  portion  of  the  hu- 
man race  from  all  eternity  to  perdition.  Unless 
an  atonement  be  made  for  our  sins,  and  effectual 
grace  be  afforded  to  us,  we  must  perish.  For  the 
sins  of  the  reprobate  no  atonement  is  made ;  to 
them  no  effectual  aid  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  given. 
From  the  moment  of  their  birth,  therefore,  to  the 
moment  of  their  death,  they  labour  under  an  ab- 
solute impossibility  of  turning  unto  God; — and 
this  in  consequence  of  his  eternal  and  uncondi- 
tional decree  vvhich  dooms  them  to  perdition. 

"  Again,  it  has  been  frequently  asked,  '  If  none 
but  the  elect  will  be  saved,  is  not  God  a  partial 
master,  and  a  respecter  of  persons  f^  But  it  may 
be  quite  as  plausibly  and  confidently  asked,  '  How 
can  we  reconcile  it  with  the  impartiality  and  the 
benevolence  of  God  to  save  only  a  part  of  man- 
kind?' If  salvation  be  his  work,  then,  why  does 
he  not  save  all?  Why  does  he  make  a  distinction? 
And  if  it  be  not  his  work,  then  men  save  them- 
selves. Will  even  Mr.  How^  with  all  his  inveteracy 
against  Calvinism^  go  this  length  ?"* 

The  Calvinistic  system  undoubtedly  makes  God 
a  partial  master,  and  a  respecter  of  persons.  How  ? 
The  whole  human  race,  in  consequence  of  the 
transgression  of  Adam,  is  in  a  fallen  state.  We 
are  all  sinners.     We  all  stand  in  equal  need  of 

•  Gontinuati»n  of  Letters,  p.  337 


LET.  VIII. 


CALVINISM.  311 


mercy.  Of  the  mass  of  mankind,  thus  situated, 
God  selects,  it  is  said,  a  certain  portion,  for  whom 
he  provides  a  Saviour,  and  whom  he  converts  and 
sanctifies  by  irresistible  grace ; — the  rest  he  or- 
dains to  perdition.  The  distinction  made  be- 
tween the  elect  and  the  reprobate,  is  altogether 
independent  of  virtue  in  the  one,  or  vice  in  the 
other.  It  is  not  founded,  to  use  the  language  of 
the  Westminster  Confession,  on  foresight  of  faith 
or  w^orks,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as 
the  moving  cause ;  but  is  to  be  resolved  solely 
into  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.  Now,  surely, 
to  represent  God  as  distinguishing,  unconditionally^ 
between  those  who  stand  on  precisely  the  same 
ground,  is  to  make  him  a  respecter  of  persons. 

"  How  can  we  reconcile  it  with  the  impartiality 
and  the  benevolence  of  God,  to  save  only  a  part 
of  mankind?" 

Your  question  amounts  simply  to  this — How 
can  we  reconcile  it  with  the  divine  attributes  to 
create  a  moral  and  responsible  being?  A  free 
agent  being  created,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  the  promised  blessings  will  be  be- 
stowed on  the  obedient,  and  that  the  threatened 
punishment  will  be  inflicted  upon  the  disobedient 
So  far  is  it  from  being  inconsistent  with  the  divine 
impartiality,  to  save  the  good,  and  to  condemn 
the  wicked,  that  it  is  in  this  very  thing  that  the 
essence  of  impartiality  consists. 

"  If  salvation  be  his  work,  then,  why  does  he 
not  save  all  ?  Why  does  he  make  a  distinction  ? 
And  if  it  be  not  his  work,  then  men  save  them- 


312  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIIL 

selves.     Will  even  Mr.  How,  with  all  his  invete- 
racy against  Calvinism,  go  this  length  ?" 

Here  salvation  is  evidenlly  represented  as  the 
i'o/t'  and  undivided  work  of  God: — of  course,  man 
is  a  complete  machine;  and  the  scriptural  ex- 
hortation, "  work  out  your  own  salvation,"  ought 
never  to  have  been  addressed  to  him.  Thus  the 
Calvinist,  talk  as  much  as  he  may  about  iree 
agency,  never  fails,  in  one  way  or  other,  to  come 
back  to  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  passivcness 
of  man,  and  the  irresistibility  of  divine  grace. 

The  scriptural  view  of  this  subject  is  as  plain 
as  words  can  make  it.  Salvation  is  the  work  of 
God — It  is  the  work  of  man  himself.  The  A\hole 
merit  of  redemption  belongs  to  Christ ; — our  bles- 
sed Saviour  fulfilled  the  law,  and  satisfied  the 
claims  of  justice.  In  this  point  of  view,  salva- 
tion is  the  work  of  God  alone.  Besides,  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  our  conversion  and  sanctification;  of  our- 
selves we  can  do  nothing.  Here  again  our  salva- 
tion is  effected  by  the  divine  agency.  But  God 
deals  with  us  as  moral  and  responsible  beings. 
The  influences  of  his  Spirit  incline  and  persuade, 
but  do  not  compel  us  to  turn  unto  him  ;  of  course 
we  have  an  active  concern  in  the  business  of  our 
conversion  and  sanctification.  Thus  salvation  is, 
in  one  sense,  the  work  of  God;  in  another,  the 
work  of  man  himself.  God  provides  a  Saviour 
for  all,  and  dispenses  sufficient  grace  to  all ;  but 
while  God  works  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do,  it 
remains  with  us,  by  co-operating  with  the  gra* 


tET.  VlII*  CALVINISM.  31S 

cious  influences  of  his  Spirit,  to  work  out  our  own 
salvation.  So  that,  in  a  proper  sense,  men  do 
save  themselves ;  and,  it  is  perfectly  plain,  that 
if  there  be  no  sense  in  which  men  contribute  to 
their  own  salvation,  they  must  be  absolute  ma-' 
chines. 

"  If  I  could  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  in- 
finite and  eternal  God  has  laid  no  plan  iti  the 
kingdom  of  his  grace,  but  has  left  all  to  be  de^ 
cided  by  chance  or  accident."* 

How  does  it  follow  from  the  anti-Calvinistic 
system,  that  God  has  laid  no  plan  in  the  kingdom 
of  his  grace?  According  to  this  system,  Christ 
died  for  all  men,  and  dispenses  (^sufficient  grace 
to  all;  according  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  he 
died  for  the  elect,  and  bestows  effectual  grace 
upon  them  alone.  In  each  case,  the  idea  of  a 
plan  is  presented.  If  the  doctrine,  that  Christ 
died  for  a  part  of  mankind,  supposes  the  Divine 
Being  to  act  upon  an  established  system,  surely 
the  doctrine  that  the  atonement  extends  to  the 
whole  human  race,  equally  supposes  it.  The 
only  difference  between  the  two  cases,  is,  that 
the  one  presents  the  Deity  to  us  as  an  impartial 
and  merciful  parent;  the  other,  as  an  arbitrary 
and  capricious  tyrant. 

"  Left  all  to  be  decided  by  chance  or  accident." 

Man  is  active  in  his  conversion  from  sin  to  ho- 
liness ;  the  Holy  Spirit  inclines  and  persuades,  but 
does  not  force  the  will ; — Christ  died  for  the  whole 


*  flontinnation  of  Letters,  p.  S37. 

40 


314  CALVINISM.  LET.  VIH. 

world.     Then,  says  the  Calvinist,  every  thing  is 
thrown  to  chance  and  accident.     It  is  all  chance 
and  accident,  unless  man  be  perfectly  passive  in 
conversion;  unless  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  irresisti- 
bly upon  the  will ;  and  unless  the  death  of  Christ 
be  of  partial  efficacy:    That  is,  all  is  chance  and 
accident  unless  man  be  a  machine ;  for  it  is  a 
manifest  contradiction  to  talk  of  the  moral  agency 
of  a  being,  who  is  altogether  passive  in  his  con- 
version from  sin  to  holiness,  or  to  ascribe  freedom 
to  the  human  mind  while  under  the  operation  of 
an  irresistible  power.     Accordingly,  Calvinists,  as 
I  have  before  observed,  scruple  not  to  deny  to 
man  all   control  over  the   determinations  of  his 
will.     And  if  we  have  no  control  over  our  deter- 
minations,   we  can  have  none  over  the  conduct 
which  is  consequent  upon  those  determinations* 
He  who  is  master  of  our  vohtions,  is  master  of 

our  actions.* 

"  If  I  could  believe  that  the  purposes  of  Jeho- 


*  ^  poicer  not  of  choosing,  but  of  acting  according  to  choice.  A  maa 
who  can  compel  me  to  choose  to  do  a  thing  which  I  have  the  physical 
power  of  doing-,  can  compel  me  to  do  the  thing".  I  will  to  stretch  out 
my  arm — the  arm  is  immediately  stretched  out.  My  power  here,  it  is 
said,  is  not  that  of  willing  to  stretch  out  my  arm,  or  not  to  stretch  it  out, 
but  simply  of  stretching  it  out  after  the  determination  has  been  pro- 
duced by  some  other  cause.  But  is  not  this  plainly  absurd  ?  AVhere  the 
requisite  physical  power  exists,  the  determination  to  perform  a  parti- 
cular act,  is  as  invariably  followed  by  the  act,  as  snow  is  dissolved  by 
heat,  or  any  other  natural  effect  follows  its  cause.  This  power  of  act- 
ing ;tccording  to  choice,  is  just  the  power  which  a  clock  possesses. 
Some  efficient  being  determines  to  wind  it  up,  and  when  wound  up, 
it  goes  until  it  runs  down;  then  it  must  be  wound  up  again.  So  after 
some  efficient  being  has  made  us  will  to  do  a  thing,  we  go  on  until  the 
thing  is  done  ;  and  then  the  being  must  will  for  us  again. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISMS  315 

vah,  instead  of  being  eternal,  are  all  formed  in 
time;  and  instead  of  beinj^  immutable,  are  all 
liable  to  be  altered  by  the  changing  will  of  his 
creatures."* 

Why  may  it  not  as  well  be  the  eternal  and  im- 
mutable purpose  of  God  to  give  his  Son  a  ransom 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  as  for  the  sins  of 
^  part?  to  incline  Viud  persuade ^  as  to  force  the  hu- 
man mind  ? — in  short,  to  make  man  a  free  agent, 
and  to  treat  him  as  such,  as  to  construct  him, 
and  deal  with  him  upon  mechanical  principles? 

The  very  idea  of  a  free  agent,  in  the  system  of 
an  omnipotent  being,  seems  to  confound  and  baffle 
all  the  faculties  of  your  mind.  Every  event,  you 
appear  to  think,  must  be  fixed  by  unconditio7ial  ap- 
pointment, and  accomplished  by  irresistible  power. 
Surely,  Sir,  a  system  formed  upon  such  principles, 
can  be  none  other  than  a  system  of  fatalism.  The 
amount  of  the  whole  matter,  therefore,  is,  that 
you  cannot  imagine  how  a  creature,  endowed 
with  the  moral  power  of  free  choice,  should  find 
its  way  into  the  work  of  an  eternal  and  immu- 
table Being.  And,  indeed,  the  whole  difficulty 
in  which  Calvinists  involve  themselves  upon  this 
subject,  arises  from  metaphysical  speculation  upon 
a  topic  which  is  too  large  for  the  grasp  of  the 
human  faculties.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  secret  decrees  of  the  Divine  Council.  So  far 
as  revelation  speaks  of  the  decrees  of  God,  we 
may  safely  go ;  beyond  that  it  is  our  duly  to  b^ 

*  Continuation  of  Xctters,  p.  337. 


316  CALVINISM.  LET.  VllU 

§ilent,  and  adore.  And,  surely,  every  one  who 
reads  the  Bible,  without  prejudice,  will  admit  that 
it  constantly  represents  mm  as  capable  of  either 
co-op3ratia^  with,  or  of  resisting  the  Spirit;  and 
that  it  invariably  holds  out  general  promises  of 
^lercy,  suspended  upon  particular  conditions. 

'*  if  I  could  suppose  that  after  all  the  Redeemer 
has  done  and  sudered,  the  work  o{  redemption  can- 
not be  completed,  unless  perishing  mortals  choose 
to  lend  their  arms  to  its  aid.''* 

Here,  surely,  you  are  arguing  without  an  anta- 
gonist It  cannot  be  necessary  to  inform  you  that 
anti  Calvinists  ascribe  the  whole  work  of  redemp- 
tion to  Jesus  Christ.  Human  nature,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  transgression  of  Adam,  had  sunk 
into  captivity  to  sin  and  death.  Out  of  this  state 
it  was  redeemed  by  the  meritorious  passion  of 
Christ.  Man  had  nothing  to  do  with  redeeming 
himself;  if  he  could  have  redeemed  himself,  the 
interposition  of  a  Mediator  would  have  been  un- 
necessary. 

"  If  I  could  admit  the  idea  that  God  has  done 
nothing  more  than  decree,  in  general,  to  save  all 
who  may  happen  to  believe ;  without  any  deter- 
mination^  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  without  any 
certaintf/^  whether  few,  or  manyy  or  none,  would 
Ije  thus  blessed." 

The  principle  upon  which  this  argument  turns, 
is,  that  God  can  foresee  nothing  but  what  he  may 
have  decreed  to  accomplish  by  an  exertion  of  hi5= 

*  Continuation  of.  Letters^  p.  Ct3f. 


LET.  VIII.  CALVINISM.  317 

omnipotent  power.    You  thus  take  for  granted  the 
very  point  in  dispute.    Having  already  said  a  good 
deal   on  this  subject,   1   shall  not  here  enlarge. 
Prove  to  us  that  God  cannot  foretell  how  a  free 
agent  will  exercise  his  power  of  choice ;  in  other 
words,  that  freedom  of  choice  and  prescience  are 
inconsistent  with  each  other,  before  you  proceed 
to  draw  conclusions  from  the  principle.     I  would 
barely  repeat  to  you,  that  if  the  principle  be  true, 
it  must  inevitably  follow,  that  God  does  not  foresee 
his  own  future  actions,  or  that  those  actions  are 
necessary.     It  is  not  sufficient,  in  your  view,  that 
God  should  determine  to  save  those  who  believe 
and  obey.     He  must  first  determine  uncondition- 
ally to  save  some,  and  reprobate  others ;  and  then 
he  must  determine  to  convert  and  sanctify  the 
former  by  irresistible  grace,  and  to  leave  the  others 
under  that  inevitable  necessity  of  perishing,  in 
which  they  enter  the  world ; — or,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Calvin,  he  must  blind  their  understand- 
ings, harden  their  hearts,  and  lay  them  under  a 
necessity  of  sinning,  in  order  that  they  may  be 
fitted  for  their  doom. 

But  1  for.^ear  to  follow  you  through  the  few  re- 
maining objections  which  you  urge  against  the 
anti-Calvinistic  doctrine;  indeed,  the  answer  to 
those  objections  has  been  anticipated  in  the  ob- 
servations already  made. 


(     318     ) 


LETTER  IX. 

TAnTTrUL.!in  COMPARISOX  of  7)R.  MTTjLEU 
WITH  THE  STAXIURItS  OF  HfS  RELIGIOUS 
SOCIETr,  AJS'I)  HITH  HIMSELF. 

Sir, 

X  HE  most  important  part  of  my  reply  to  your 
Letters,  you  have  thought  it  proper  to  pass  with- 
out a  word  of  notice.  I  allude  to  the  part  in  which 
your  four  general  presumptions  are  considered, 
and  in  which  you  are  shown  to  be  at  variance,  on 
the  subject  of  the  visible  Church,  with  the  sacred 
writings,  w^ith  the  standards  of  your  religious  so- 
ciety, and  with  yourself.  In  reference  to  all  these 
points,  you  content  yourself  with  saying  that  your 
opponent  does  not  understand  the  Presbyterian 
Confession  of  Faith.  If  I  have  misinterpreted  the 
standards  of  your  society,  you  should  have  pointed 
out  the  misinterpretation.  This  would  have  been 
at  once  to  put  me  to  shame.  It  cannot,  therefore, 
be  very  difficult  to  conjecture  the  true  cause  of  the 
concise  mode  of  reply  which  you  have  preferred 
on  the  occasion. 

I  entered  into  a  long  and  particular  statement 
to  show  that  your  principles  are  destructive  of  the 
very  existence  of  a  visible  Church,  and  that  they 
militate  directly  with  the  express  and  repeated 
declarations  of  your  public  formularies,  not  less 
than  with  the  constant  tenor  of  holy  writ.     To 


LET.  IX.      COMPARISON  OP  DR.  MILLER,  fec.  319 

vindicate  yourself  IVoin  charges  of  so  very  serious 
a  nature,  it  might  well  have  been  supposed,  would 
be  your  first  object.  The  laws  of  controversy  gave 
you  but  a  single  alternative.  You  were  absolutely 
bound  either  to  defend  your  doctrine,  or  to  confess 
your  error. 

It  will  now  be  my  purpose  to  bring  you  to  a 
strict  comparison  with  the  standards  of  your  reli- 
gious society,  and  with  yourself.  Particular  in- 
stances of  contradiction  have*been  already  pointed 
out;  but  I  will  now,  craving  the  indulgence  of  the 
reader  for  the  repetition  which  it  may  involve, 
endeavour  to  collect  the  most  important  heads  of 
your  inconsistency  into  one  view. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  you  shall  be  compared 
with  those  public  standards  which  you  have  sub- 
scribed, and  to  which  you  are  under  the  most  sa- 
cred obligations  to  conform. 

I.  "  Presbyterians,  (I  speak  now  of  all  that  I 
have  ever  known  or  heard  of,  particularly  the  most 
rigid  among  them)  Presbyterians,  I  say,  believe, 
that  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace^  salvation  is  promised^  that  is,  secured  by 
covenant  engagement^  to  all  who  sincerely  repent 
of  sin,  and  unfeignedly  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Of  course  they  consider  all  who  bear  this 
character,  to  whatever  external  Church  they  may 
belong,  or  even  if  they  bear  no  relation  to  any  vi- 
sible Church,  as  in  covenant  with  God."* 

•  ^  I  repeat  it,  then,  the  doctrine  of  all  Calvinistic 

*  Continuation  Qf  Letters,  p.  5«. 


320  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.  IX. 

Presbyterians  is,  that  every  one  who  loves  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  and  maintains  a 
holy  life,  whatever  may  be  the  mistakes  into 
which  he  may  fall,  or  the  prejudices  against  par- 
ticular parts  of  evangelical  truth  and  order  which 
he  may  entertain;  whatever  the  disadvantages 
under  which  he  may  labour,  with  respect  to  his 
ecclesiastical  connexions;  or  even  if  he  were 
placed  in  circumstances  in  which  he  never  saw  a 
place  of  public  worship,  a  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
or  a  Church  ofHcer  of  any  kind,  in  his  life ;  that 
every  such  person  is  m  covenant  with  God."* 

"  The  sincere  piety^  and  of  course  the  covenant 
title  to  Heaven.^'^f 

Now,  Sir,  let  all  this  be  tested  by  the  language 
of  your  public  standards. 

"  A  sacrament  is  an  holy  ordinance  instituted 
by  Christ  in  his  Church,  to  signify,  seal,  and  ex- 
hibit unto  those  that  are  wixHtN  the  covenant  of 
GRACE,  the  benefits  of  his  mediation,  and  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  those  that  are  without."} 

"  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that 
are  out  of  the  visible  Church,  and  so  strangers 
FROM  the  covenant  OF  PROMISE,  till  they  profess 
their  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him."§ 

To  the  same  purpose  speaks  your  Confession  of 
Faith.  "  The  visible  Church  is  the  kingdom  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of 
God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possi- 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  59.  f  l^id.  p.  62. 

t  Larger  Catechism,  question  162.  §  Ibid,  question  166. 


LET.  IX.     WITH  HIS  RELIGIOUS  STANDARDS.  52J 

BiLiTV  OF  SALVATION."*  By  Ordinary  possibility 
of  salvation,  is  here  evidently  meant  covenanted 
possibility;  otherwise  it  must  follow^  that  the  co- 
venanted way  of  salvation  is  not  the  ordinary 
way;  which  will  scarcely  be  pretended.  Besides, 
in  one  of  the  passages  of  Scripture,  referred  to  in 
support  of  this  section  of  your  Confession  of  Faith, 
the  members  of  the  visible  Church  are  spoken  of 
as  being  in  covenant  with  CJod.f  Ordinary  pos- 
sibility, then,  is  only  another  name  for  covenanted 
possibility.  And  this,  it  will  be  observed,  only 
makes  your  Confession  of  Faith  speak  the  same 
language  with  the  other  standards  of  your  society. 

You  tell  us  that  salvation  is  secured  by  covenant 
engagement  to  all  who  believe  and  repent,  even 
supposing  them  never  so  much  as  to  have  seen  a 
Church  otlicer  in  their  lives.  Your  standards  tell 
us  that  a  man  may  have  repentance  and  faith,  and 
still  be  a  stranger  to  the  covenant  of  promise;  and 
that  after  he  may  have  satisned  the  governors  of 
the  Church  of  his  faith,  and  of  the  sincerity  of 
his  purposes  of  obedience,  it  remains  to  put  hira 
within  the  covenant  by  administering  to  him  the 
ordinance  of  baptism. 

According  to  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith^ 
a  covenant  supposes  a  visible  transaction,  in  which 
it  is  signed  and  sealed.  According  to  you^  it  is  a 
simple  ailair  of  the  mind,    without  any  external 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  2. 

f  "  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee ;  and  thf 
seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting-  covenant.** 
Gen.  svii.  7. 

41 


322  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  !\fILLER  LET.  IX. 

ceremony,  in  which  it  is  either  published  or  con- 
firmed. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  declares  that  the  visible 
Church  is  the  only  medium  through  which  a  cove- 
ii>anted  title  to  salvation  is  to  be  obtained.  You 
declare  that  such  covenanted  title  depends,  not  at 
all  upon  visible  Church  membership,  but  simply 
wpon  the  state  of  the  mind  and  heart. 

If  it  had  been  your  express  purpose  to  contra- 
dict the  religious  articles  of  your  society,  I  see 
not  how  you  could  have  done  it  in  a  manner  more 
precise  or  unequivocal. 

li.  "  Wherever  the  unfeigned  love  of  our  divine 
Saviour,  a  humble  reliance  on  his  atoning  sacri- 
fice, and  a  corresponding  holiness  of  life,  pervade 
any  denomination  of  Christians,  we  acknowledge 
t?hem  to  be  a  true  Church."^ 

"  It  is  certainly  contrary  to  the  genius  of  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  to  place  forms  of  outward 
order  among  those  things  which  are  essential  to 
the  very  existence  of  the  Church."t 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Church  may  exist  with- 
out either  ministry  or  ordinances;  that  she  is  inde- 
pendent of  every  thing  external ;  in  short,  that  no- 
thing is  essential  to  her  existence  but  the  posses- 
sion of  particular  internal  quaUfications. 

How  does  this  correspond  with  your  public 
Standards  ? 

1.  The  ministry,  according  to  the  Presbyterian 
Confession  of  Faith,  is  essential  to  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Church. 

•  Letters,  p.  344.  f  Ibid.  p.  14. 


LET.  IX.      WITH  HIS  RELIGIONS  STANDARDS.  32S 

"  Unto  this  Catholic  visible  Church,  Christ  hatl^ 
given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God, 
for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints,  in 
this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world."* 

"  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  King  and  Head  of  his 
Church,  hath  therein  appointed  a  government  in 
the  hand  of  Church  officers,  distinct  from  the  civil 
magistrate.  To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the  king* 
dom  of  Heaven  are  committed,  by  virtue  of  which 
they  have  power  respectively  to  retain  and  remit 
sins,  to  shut  that  kingdom  against  the  impenitent, 
both  by  the  word  and  censures;  and  to  open  it 
unto  penitent  sinners,  by  the  ministry  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  by  absolution  from  censures,  as  occasion, 
shall  require.' "t 

Here,  then,  you  are  again  irreconcilably  at  va- 
riance with  your  religious  articles.  According  to 
them^  the  Church  cannot  possibly  exist  without  a 
ministry,  which  is  matter  of  external  order.  Ac- 
cording to  2/ow,  the  existence  of  the  Church  is  in- 
dependent of  every  thing  external. 

2.  "  There  be  only  two  sacraments  ordained  by 
Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  Bap- 
tism, and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord ;  neither  of  which 
may  be  dispensed  by  any  but  a  minister  of  the 
word,  lawfully  ordainedyX 

Ordination,  then,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
conveyance  of  the  sacerdotal  office.  Thus,  the 
ministry  being  essential  to  the  Church,  and  out- 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  4. 
f  Confession  of  Faith,  chip.  xxv.  sect.  3. 
i  Ibid.  chap.  xxx.  sect,  1,  2. 


324  COMPARISON  OF    DR.  MILLER         LET.  IX. 

ward  ordination  being  essential  to  the  ministry, 
it  follows  that  outward  ordination  is  the  basis 
on  whi'h  the  Church  visible  must  rest.  Such  is 
the  doctrine  of  your  puhlic  standards.  But  yo2i 
assure  us  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  to  make  the  existence  of 
the  Church  depend  upon  outward  forms.  If  your 
idea,  therefore,  be  correct,  that  part  of  your  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  which  asserts  the  necessity  of 
external  ordination  to  the  ministry,  and  of  course 
to  the  Church,  is  Hable  to  the  charge  of  setting 
forth  erroneous  doctrine ;  indeed  of  being  repug- 
nant to  the  very  genius  of  Christianity. 

3.  Still  further — Your  standards  not  only  make 
outward  ordination  essential  to  the  ministry,  but 
they  make  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery essential  to  outward  ordination  ;  thus  plac- 
ing- Presbyterial  ordination  at  the  very  foundation 
of  the  Church.  For  example,  in  your  form  of 
Church  government,  the  power  of  ordination  is 
declared  to  be  vested  in  a  Presbytery ;  the  act  of 
ordination  is  declared  to  be  the  act  of  a  Presby- 
tery; — and  all  this  is  rested  on  the  ground  of 
Apostolic  example.* 

According  to  the  articles  of  yotir  society^  Pres- 
byterial ordination,  being  essential  to  the  ministry, 
is  essential  to  the  Church.  According  to  7jou,  the 
Church,  being  made  up  of  internal  qualifications, 
cannot  possibly  depend  for  its  existence  upon  any 
thing  external. 

•  Form  of  fiovernmcnt  of  the  Pres])ylcriun  Churcli  in  the  United 
States,  chap.  ix.  sect.  5.  chap.  xiv.  sect.  12. 


LET.  IX.     WITH  HIS  RELIGIOUS  STANDARDS.  S25 

4.  "  Sacraments  are  holy  signs  and  seals  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  immediately  instituted  l>y  God, 
to  represent  Christ  and  his  benefits;  and  to  con- 
firm our  interest  in  him;  as  also  to  put  a  visible 
difference  between  those  that  belong  unto  the 
Church,  and  the  rest  of  the  world."* 

The  sacraments  distinguish  those  who  belong  to 
the  world,  from  those  who  belong  to  the  Church. 
But  how  can  this  be,  if  internal  qualifications 
will  make  men  members  of  the  Church,  inde- 
pendently of  all  conformity  to  outward  ordinan- 
ces ? 

If  =iuch  associations  as  possess  the  sacraments 
are  Churches,  and  such  associations  as  lay  them 
aside  are  not  Churches,  then  the  sacraments  put 
a  visible  difference  between  the  Church  and  the 
world ;  but  if  religious  associations,  which  dis- 
card the  sacraments  altogether,  may  be  still 
Churches  of  Christ,  the  sacraments  cannot  be 
said  to  put  any  visible  difference  between  the 
Church  and  the  world,  and,  of  course,  the  doc- 
trine of  your  Confession  of  Faith  is  unsound. 

The  standards  of  your  society  thus  represent  the 
external  forms  of  baptism  and  the  supper,  as  the 
criterion  by  which  the  world  and  the  Church  are 
to  be  distinguished  from  one  another;  whereas 
you  declare  that  the  Church  mav  exist  without 
any  external  forms,  and  that  the  true  criterion  of 
its  existence  is  the  aggregate  saintship  of  a  reli- 
gious association. 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect  1 


326  COMPARISON  OF    DR.  MILLER         LET.  IX. 

5.  See  the  definition  which  your  standards  give 
of  a  particular  Church  I  "  A  particular  Church 
consists  of  a  number  of  professing  Christians, 
with  their  offspring  voluntarily  associated  together, 
and  submitting  to  a  certain  form  of  government. ^^* 

What  is  the  Catholic  visible  Church  but  a 
collection  of  particular  visible  Churches?  Here, 
then,  the  very  existence  of  the  visible  Church,  is 
made  to  depend  on  a  system  of  outward  govern- 
ment. But  you  assert  that  any  collection  of  in- 
dividuals, possessing  particular  internal  quaUfica- 
tions,  is,  simply  by  virtue  of  these  qualificationSj 
a  re2;ular  Church  ;  and  that  to  make  outward 
order  or  government  essential  to  the  existence  of 
the  Church,  is  contrary  to  the  very  genius  of  the 
Christian  system.f 

III.  It  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  your  Letters  that 
aaintship  is  the  test  of  Church  membership. 

"  Wherever  the  unfeigned  love  of  our  divine 
Saviour,  an  humble  reliance  on  his  atoning  sa- 
crifice, and  a  corresponding  holiness  of  life,  per- 
vade any  denomination  of  Christians,  we  hail 
them  as  brethren  in  Christ;  we  acknowledge  them 
to  be  a  true  Church."t  All  associations  are  com- 
posed of  individuals.  The  qualities,  therefore, 
w  hich  make  an  association  a  Church,  must  make 
an  individual  of  that  association  a  Church  member. 
It  follows,  according  to  your  account  of  the  mat- 
ter, that  all  holy  persons  are  members  of  the  visi- 

•  Form  of  Government  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  chap.  i.  sect.  4 

t  Letters,  p.  14,  341  I  Letters,  p.  344 


LET.  IX.     WITH  HTS  RELIGIOUS  STANDARDS.  327 

ble  Church  of  Christ,  simply  by  virtue  of  their 
holiness. 

But  further — Speaking  of  the  visif)le  Church, 
you  say, — "  All  real  believers  are  one  I'xxly  in 
Christ."*  "  Every  believer  in  Jesus^  who  is  a  par- 
taker  of  the  grace  of  God  in  truth^  is  a  member  of 
the  true  Church,  to  whatever  denomination  of 
Christians  he  may  belong.''t 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  public  standards  of 
your  society. 

"  The  purest  Churches  under  Heaven  are  sub- 
ject both  to  mixture  and  error."t 

It  follows  that  the  Church  is  a  society  consist- 
ing of  good  and  bad  members.  Besides,  the  pa- 
rables of  the  net,  and  of  the  tares,  are  referred 
to,  in  proof  of  this  section  of  your  Confession  of 


*  Letters,  p.  20.  f  Ibid.  p.  24. 

It  is  impossible  to  escape  by  saying'  that  these  passag-es  refer  to  the 
invisible  Church.  The  visible  Church  is  the  subject  of  your  whole 
work.  Besides,  your  object  is  to  prove  that  Presbyterians  .^re  mord 
liberal  than  Episcopalians,  inasmuch  as  they  admit  all  Christian  socie- 
ties, that  possess  real  piety,  to  be  entitled  to  be  considered  as  regular 
visible  Churches  of  Christ ;  while  Episcopalians  are  unwilling  to  con* 
cede  so  much.  Now,  if  the  invisible  Church  be  ti.e  subject  referred  to, 
your  argument  must  run  thus — Presbyterians  are  more  liberal  tlian  Epis- 
copalians, for  while  the  former  freely  admit  that  all  pious  '  hnstiant 
are  members  of  the  invisibi-e  Church,  the  latter  do  not  admit  that  all 
pious  Christians. are  members  of  the  visible  Chukch.  But  apart  from 
this — the  passages,  "  Every  believer  in  Jesus  is  a  member  of  the  trutf 
Church"—**  all  real  believers  are  one  body  in  Christ" — exactly  co- 
incide with  the  language  which  you  habitually  hold  on  the  subject  of 
the  visible  Church — "  Wherever  the  unfeigned  love  of  our  divine  Sa- 
viour, &c.  pervade  any  denomination  of  Christians,  we  acknowledge 
tliem  to  be  a  true  Church."  Your  doctrine,  then,  unqutstionably,  is, 
that  piety,  of  itself ^  puts  us  within  the  pale  of  the  Chfbch  viiiBiF. 
*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xXv.  sect.  5. 


328  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.  IX. 

Faith ;  which  parables  have  ever  been  considered 
as  marking  the  union  of  the  virtuous  with  the 
wicked,  in  the  Church  mililant. 

As^ain — •'  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New 
Testanent,  ord.dned  by  Jesus  Ciirist  for  the  so- 
lemn admission  of  the  party  baptized  into  the  vi- 
sible Church."* 

Here  baptism  is  made  the  criterion  of  Church 
membership ;  and  you  will  hardly  contend  that 
baptism  and  saintship  always  coincide. 

Further — "  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered 
to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible  Churchy  and  so 
strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise^  till  they 
profess   their   faith  in   Christ,   and  obedience  to 

him.^t 

Thus,  a  person  who  wishes  to  be  admitted  into 
the  visible  Church,  is  first  required  to  make  pro- 
fession of  faith  and  obedience.  The  governors  of 
the  Church  are  to  be  satisfied  that  he  is  a  peni- 
tent believer;  and  even  after  they  are  thus  satisfied, 
he  is  still  regarded  as  an  alien  from  the  visible 
Church,  and  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  until 
he  is  placed  within  the  one,  and  becomes  interested 
in  the  other,  by  the  instrumentality  of  an  external 
ordinance. 

Still  further — The  "  sacraments  put  a  visible 
difference  between  those  that  belong  unto  the 
Church,  and  the  rest  of  the  world."!     Not  so,  you 

•  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxviii.  sect  1. 

f  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States^ 
Larger  Catechism,  question  166. 

^  Confe&sion  of  Faith,  ckap.  xxvii.  sect  1. 


LET.  IX.     WITH  HIS  RELIGIOUS  STANDARDS.  S29 

tell  us;  for  a  saint  is  a  men  ber  of  the  Church, 
simply  by  virtue  of  his  saintship.  The  sacraments, 
then,  cannot  possibly  distinguish  the  Church  from 
the  world,  since  men  may  be  members  of  the 
Church  independently  of  the  sacr  menls. 

IV.  "  Presbyterians  understand  the  Gospel  too 
well  to  speak  of  uncovenanted  mercy  at  all."  *'  Fal- 
len creatures  know  of  no  mercy  but  that  which  is 
promised  or  secured  by  the  covenant  of  grace."* 

Now,  your  Confession  of  Faith,  in  confining  all 
ordinary  ox  covenanted  possibility  of  salvation  within 
the  visible  Church,  obviously  admits  that  salvation 
may  be  had  out  of  that  Church  in  an  extraordinary 
ox  uncovenanted  way.  In  commenting  on  this 
very  language  of  your  public  standards,  you  speak 
of  them  as  "  making  provision  for  the  exercise  of 
mercy,  in  ways  extraordinary,  and  therefore  un- 
known to  us."t  So  that  by  your  own  admission, 
in  page  44  of  your  Continuation  of  Letters,  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  recognizes  mercy 
which  is  uncovenanted ;  whereas,  you  expressly  tell 
us,  in  pages  57  and  58  of  the  same  work,  that  Pres- 
byterians know  of  no  mercy  but  such  as  is  secured 
by  covenant.  Here,  then,  you  palpably  contradict 
both  your  religious  standards,  and  yourself. 

Again — Your  Confession  of  Faith  speaks  of 
"  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word."  Such 
persons,  plainly,  cannot  be  members  of  the  visible 
Church;   so  that,   according  to   the  standards  of 


Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  57,  58.  f  ^^i^-  P-  ^ 

42 


,330  COMPARISON  OF  I>R.  MILLER  LET-  IX, 

your  society,  there  are  persons  who  will  infallibly 
be  saved,  although,  "  being  out  of  the  visible 
Church,  they  are  strangers  from  the  covenant  of 
promise."* 

According  to  you,  there  can  be  no  mercy  for 
fallen  creatures  but  in  the  regular  method  of  cove- 
nant engagement. 

According  to  the  standards  of  your  society^  the 
visible  Church  is  the  only  medium  through  which 
a  covenanted  title  to  salvation  may  be  obtained;! 
but  fallen  creatures,  not  members  of  that  Church, 
and  so  not  possessing  any  covenanted  title  to  salva- 
tion, may,  nevertheless,  in  an  extraordinary  or  un- 
covenanted  way,  be  admitted  to  mercy. 

I  submit  it  to  candid  Presbyterians,  whether  you 
have  not  been  proved,  in  points  of  fundamental 
importance,  to  be  in  direct  inconsistency  with 
those  public  articles  which  you  have  subscribed, 
and  to  which  you  are  under  the  most  solemn  obli- 
gations to  conform.  Let  the  passages  cited  from 
your  Letters,  and  from  your  religious  standards, 
be  fairly  compared  ;  and  the  former  must  certainly 
appear  a  very  strange  vindication  of  the  latter. 

The  candid  and  enlightened  advocates  of  Pres- 

•  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States. 
Larg-er  Catechism,  question  166. 

f  You  fix  upon  your  standards  the  odious  charg-e  of  consigning  all  but 
the  members  of  the  visib'.,^  Church  to  inevitable  perdition. 

There  is  no  mercy  but  such  as  is  secured  by  covenant.     Dr.  Jililler. 

Mercy  is  secured  by  covenant  only  to  the  members  of  the  visible 
Church — "  Out  of  the  visible  Church,  and  so  strangers  from  the  cove- 
nant of  promise."     Presbyterian  Standards. 

Put  the  two  propositions  together,  und  it  follows,  irresistibly,  that 
none  but  tlic  members  of  the  visible  Church  can  possibly  be  saved. 


)Ll2T.  IX*  WITH  HIMSELF.  33j 

byterial  order  will  never  acknowledge  you  as  their 
defender. 

But  you  are  not  more  at  variance  with  the  arti- 
cles of  your  society  than  with  yourself. 

I.  You  assert  that  all  pious  persons,  whether 
members  of  the  visible  Church  or  not,  are,  simply 
by  virtue  of  their  piety,  in  a  state  of  covenant 
with  God.*  In  this  you  literally  trample,  as  I  have 
abundantly  shown,  upon  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chism and  Confession  of  Faith,t  which  it  is  your 
sacred  duty  to  believe  and  to  defend. 

But  you  also  contradict  yourself  on  the  subject. 

1.  The  visible  Church  you  entitle  "  the  house- 
hold of  God,  to  which  his  gracious  promises,  and 
his  life-giving  Spirit  are  vouchsafed-''^ 

If  the  visible  Church  be  the  household  of  God, 
it  must  be  in  a  state  of  very  special  relation  to  him. 
Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  inform  us  what  that  rela- 
tion is  ?  Surely  it  can  be  none  other  than  a  cove- 
nant relation.  Now,  to  say  that  the  visible  Church 
stands  in  a  covenant  relation  to  God,  is  to  say  that 
aliens  from  that  Church  do  not  stand  in  such  rela- 
tion; for  it  would  be  absurd  to  speak  of  the  Church 
as  particularly  connected  with  God  in  the  way  of 
covenant,  if  piety  be  the  simple  thing  which  brings 


*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  58,  59,  62. 

I  "The  visible  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  our 
of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation."  Freshyteriuv. 
Confession  of  Faith,  ohap.  xxv.  sect.  2.  "  Out  of  the  visible  Church, 
and  so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promKc."  Larger  CatccMfR'u 
Question  166. 

*  Letters,  p.  342. 


332  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.  IX. 

mca  into  covenant  with  him,  without  reference  to 
the  consideration  of  Church  membership. 

But  it  is  to  the  visible  Church  that"  the  pro- 
mises of  God,  and  his  Hfe-giving  Spirit  are  vouch- 
safed "  What  is  the  meaning  of  this?  Surely  it 
is  your  desi'^n  to  represent  the  visible  Church  as 
possessing  a  peculiar  claim  to  the  promises  of  God, 
and  to  his  life-giving  Spirit.  Now,  if  this  pecu- 
liar claim  be  not  a  covenant  claim,  will  you  be  so 
good  as  to  inform  us  what  kind  of  claim  it  is  ? 

2.  "  If  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  only  real 
Church  on  earth,  and  alone  in  covenant  with  Christ 
the  head."^ 

Hare  vou  appear  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  the 
only  method  of  entering  into  covenant  with  God, 
is  through  the  medium  of  the  visible  Church. 
Upon  no  other  construction  is  it  possible  to  give 
meaning  to  the  passage.  The  Presbyterian  society 
being  admitted  to  be  the  only  real  Church,  you 
see  n  to  regard  it  as  a  natural  and  necessary  con- 
sequence, that  that  society  alone  is  in  covenant 
with  God.  This  being  so,  it  must  follow  that,  in 
representing  piety  as  the  test  of  a  covenanted  state, 
you  are  quite  inconsistent  with  yourself. 

3.  You  inform  us,  that  if  mercy  be  extended  to 
such  as  do  not  belong  to  the  visible  Church,  it 
must  be  in  some  extraordinary  and  unknown  way.f 

Members  of  the  Church  are  saved  in  a  regular 
and  covenanted  way :  aliens  from  the  Church  are 
saved,  not  in  a  regular  and  covenanted  way,  but 

•  Lttitrs,  p   314.  f  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  44. 


LET.  IX.  WrXH    HIMSELF.  333 

in  a  way  extraordinary  and  unknown.  Such  is  the 
true  interpretation  of  your  language,  or  it  will  not 
admit  of  interpretation.  Now,  it  will  be  granted, 
that  none  but  the  pious  can  be  saved.  Thus,  then, 
you  speak  to  us  of  pious  persons  who  are  saved  in 
an  uncovenanted  way ;  in  other  words,  who  are  in 
an  uncovenanted  state.  Still,  it  is  one  of  your 
leading  positions,  that  all  pious  persons,  simply  by 
virtue  of  their  piety,  are  in  covenant  with  God. 

4.  "  If  the  extravagant  doctrine,"  that  Episco- 
pacy is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  visible 
Church,  "  be  admitted ;  then  no  man  can  be  in 
communion  with  Christ,  unless  he  is  also  in  com- 
munion with  the  Episcopal  Church."*  See  how 
you  argue!  It  is  only  through  the  medium  of  the 
visible  Church  that  communion  can  be  holden 
with  Christ;  if,  therefore,  Episcopacy  be  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  visible  Church,  it  must  follow 
that  none  can  be  in  communion  with  Christ  but 
the  sect  of  EpiscopaHans.  That  communion  with 
Christ  can  be  only  in  the  visible  Church,  is,  then, 
the  fundamental  principle  on  which  your  argu- 
ment rests.  Now,  to  say  that  communion  with 
Christ  can  be  only  in  the  visible  Church,  is  equi- 
valent with  saying,  that  to  that  Church  alone  all 

*  Letters,  p.  16. 

Your  four  general  presumptions  are  directed  against  the  principle, 
that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  visible  Church. 
Speaking  of  those  Episcopalians,  against  whose  exclusive  claims  you 
are  about  to  advance  your  presumptions,  you  say,  "  They  contend  that 
one  form  of  government  for  the  Church  is  unalterably  fixed  by  divine 
appointment ;  that  this  form  is  Episcopal ;  that  it  is  absolutely  essentia! 
to  the  existence  of  the  Chui"ch.*'    Letters,  p.  13- 


334  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.  IX. 

covenanted  title  to  salvation  is  confined.  You  must 
give  up,  therefore,  either  your  doctrine  or  your 
argument.  Do  not  tell  us  that  piety  will,  of  itself, 
put  men  in  a  state  of  covenanted  communion 
with  God,  and  then  proceed  to  reason  upon  the 
principle,  that  covenanted  communion  with  God 
can  be  only  in  the  visible  Church. 

II.  It  has  been  shown,  that,  in  making  saint- 
ship  the  criterion  of  Church  membership^  you  de- 
part from  the  habitual  language  of  your  public 
standards.  Let  us  see  whether  you  have  the  me- 
rit of  being  consistent  with  yourself  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

You  admit  that  the  Church  of  Christ  contains 
many  unworthy  individuals,  and  that  we  must  al- 
ways expect  to  find  much  corruption  within  her 
pale.* 

How,  then,  can  saintship  be  her  criterion  of 
membership? 

Further — You  inform  us  that  there  are  persons, 
belonging  to  no  visible  Church,  who  are  in  the 
sure  road  to  Heaven,  and  who  will,  without  doubt, 
be  finally  saved.f  Persons,  who  are  in  the  sure 
road  to  Heaven,  and  who  will,  without  doubt,  be 


»  Letters,  p.  342. 

f  *'  Presbyterians  consider  all  who  repent  and  believe,  even  if  thei> 
hear  no  relation  to  any  visible  Churchy  as  in  the  sure  and  certain  road  to 
Heaven  "^  Here  are  penitent  believers,  in  the  sure  road  to  Heaven,  who 
are,  nevertheless,  aliens  from  the  Church  of  Christ  upon  earth.  What 
arf)nrjmeiit  upon  your  repeated  declarations  that  all  pious  persons  are 
members  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  simply  by  the  force  of  their  piety  ! 

\  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  58. 


LET.  IX.  WITH    HIMSELF.  3.S5 

saved,  must  be  pious  persons.  But  how  is  this  r 
Saintship  is  the  test  of  Church  membership  ;  and, 
still,  many  bad  men  belong  to  the  Church,  and 
many  saints  do  not  belong  to  it.  All  saints  are 
Church  members;  but  many  saints  are  not  Church 
members. 

III.  "  It  is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  to  place  forms  of  outward  order 
among  those  things  which  are  essential  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  Church."* 

Any  body  of  men  may  he  considered  as  fairly 
entitled  to  the  name  of  Church,  if  they  possess  a 
particular  sort  of  internal  qualifications.f 

Such  is  your  doctrine.  It  has  been  compared 
with  the  language  of  your  public  standards.  Let 
it  now  be  compared  with  the  language  of  other 
parts  of  your  own  Letters. 

1.  Pray,  how  are  we  to  understand  you  when 
you  speak  of  the  Church  as  the  household  oi  GodPJ 
This,  surely,  presents  the  idea  that  it  is  an  outward 
and  visible  body.  A  household  cannot  possibly 
be  a  mere  invisible  thing.  You  are  the  first  per- 
son, I  believe,  that  ever  discovered  a  household 
made  up  of  internal  properties. 

2.  "  None  are  regularly  invested  with  the  mi- 
nisterial character,  or  can,  with  propriety,  be  re- 
cognized in  this  character,  but  those  who  have 
been  set  apart  to  the  office,  by  persons  lawfully 
clothed  with  the  power  of  ordaining."^ 

Here,  the  form  of  outward  ordination  is  made 

»  l^ettere,  p  14.        f  \h\i\.  p.  344.        i  Ibid,  p-  34-?.        $  Ibid.  p.  8 


3S6  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.  IX, 

essential  to  the  whole  bushioss  of  preaching  the 
word,  and  administering  the  sacrainents  of  Christ, 
That  which  is  essential  to  the  whole  business  of 
preaching  the  word,  and  administering  the  sacra- 
ments of  Christ,  may  fairly  be  considered  as  es- 
sential to  the  Church.  So  that  in  one  page  of 
your  Letters  we  meet  with  a  Church  which  de- 
pends, absolutely,  for  its  existence,  on  the  laying 
on  of  hands  in  clerical  ordination ;  in  another 
page,  a  Church  is  presented  to  us,  which  is  totally 
independent  of  outward  forms;  requiring  nothing 
for  its  existence  but  faith  and  holiness.  And,  dur* 
ing  all  this  time,  it  is  one  and  the  same  commu- 
nity that  you  are  professing  to  describe. 

3.  "  It  is  certainly  the  duty  of  every  man  to 
keep  the  whole  law  of  God ;  yet  as  we  do  not 
deny  that  an  individual  professor  is  a  real  Chris- 
tian, because  we  perceive  som6,  imperfections  in 
his  character;  so  neither  do  we  deny  a  Church  to 
be  a  true  Church  of  Christ,  because  she  is  not,  in 
all  respects,  conformed  to  our  ideas  of  scriptural 
purity."* 

The  words,  in  all  respects,  you  have  very  care- 
fully marked  in  italics.  Now,  Sir,  how  will  yoii 
make  yourself  consistent  ?  To  say  that  a  religious 
association,  in  order  to  the  possession  of  the  Church 
character,  need  not  be  conformed,  in  all  respects, 
to  the  Prcsbyterial  plan  of  discipline,  is  to  say, 
that,  in  some  respects,  it  must  be  conformed  to 
that  plan:  so  that  you  first  tell  us,  that  the  Church 

♦  LetUrs,  p.  344,  3^5. 


1.ET.  IX.  WITH    HI.MSELr.  337 

may  exist  without  any  external  form;  and  then, 
that  a  Corin,  substuntiallij  Pnshyter'wl^  is  essential 
to  her  existence.  And,  in  confornii.y  with  this 
last  idea,  you  refuse  the  name  of  Church  to  the 
jociety  of  Quakers.*  You  admit  the  Quakers  to 
be  sincere  Christians.  How  happens  it,  tlien, 
that  they  are  not  a  Church?  Tliey  have  the  in- 
ternal qualifications;  but  this,  uliich  answers  very 
well  in  one  page  of  your  Letters,  will  not  answer 
at  all  in  another.  Ah!  the  Quaker  society  is  not 
constructed  siijficienilij  upon  Presbyterial  princi- 
ples.    This  is  the  secret  of  the  whole  business. 

5.  1  declare,  most  sincerely.  Sir,  that,  of  all  the 
inconsistent  writers  I  have  ever  met  with,  you  ap- 
pear to  me  to  be  the  most  inconsistent.     Scarcely 
two  pages  of  your  book  can  be  made   to  agree; 
indeed,  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  to  meet  with  ra- 
dical contradictions  in  a  single  sentence. 
Take  the  following  as  a  specimen — 
"  Wherever  the  unfeigned  love   of  our  Divine 
Saviour,  an  humble  reliance  on  his  atoning  sacri- 
fice, and  a  corresponding  holiness  of  life,  pervade 
any  denomination  of  Christians,  we  hail  them  as 
brethren  in  Christ;  we  acknowledge  them  to  be 
a  true  Church;  and  although  we    may  acknow^- 
ledge  and  lament  imperfections  in  their  outward 
government,  we  consider  them  as  truly  in  cove- 
nant with  the  King  of  Zion  as  ourselves."t 

In  the  first  part  of  this  sentence,  we  are  ex- 
pressly told  that  faith  and  holiness  will  constitute 

'  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  56.  f  Lr  Iters,  p.  344. 

13 


338  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.  IX. 

any   religious   assembly   a   true   Church.     After- 
wards, indeed,  the   idea  of  an   outward   govern- 
ment is  presented  5  and  although  it  is  not  posi- 
tively assorted  that  this  government  is  essential, 
yet  its  existence  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted. 
If  the   existence  of  an  outward  government  be 
taken  for  granted,  it  is  absurd  to  talk  of  a  Church 
made  up  of  individuals  possessing  invisible  qua- 
lities.    These  individu uls,  beside  their  faith  and 
holiness,  must,  it  seems,   be  bound  together  by 
external  institutions.    The  government,  too,  must 
be   of  a   particular  kind.     For   example,  a   civil 
government  would,   surely,    not   answer;   to   say 
the  least,  the  government  must  be  ecclesiastical ; 
and,  by  the  time  we  have  arrived  at  the  top  of 
your  next  page,  it  becomes  indispensable  to  have 
this  ecclesiastical   government  constructed,    sub^ 
stantialhjy  upon  the  Presbyterian  model.* 

Thus  do  you  literally  say  and  unsay  in  the  very 
same  breath. 

In  the  first  clause  of  a  paragraph,  every  thing 
shall  be  as  free  and  liberal  as  the  most  ardent  la- 
titudinarian  can  desire — All  good  Christians  are 
members  of  the  Church — Let  us  have  no  invidi- 
ous distinctions — We  are  all  brethren — But  before 
we  arrive  at  the  close  of  the  paragraph,  the  scene 
is  completely  changed ;  all  these  fairy  ideas  vanish ; 


•  "  Presbyterian  Church  g'overnmenl  was  the  primitive  model;  and 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  Church  to  conform  to  this  model.  Vet  we  do 
not  deny  a  Church  to  be  a  true  Cliurch  of  Christ,  b<craise  she  is  not, 
in  ull  rrsi'ircte,  coiifurmewl  to  our  ideag  of  scnpturai  purity."  Letters, 
p.  344,  345. 


LET.  IX.  WITH  HIMSELF.  839 

and  we  find  ourselves  literally  shut  up  in  a  Pres- 
byterian conventicle. 

IV.  One  of  the  objections  which  you  urge 
against  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy,  is,  that  it 
does  not  rest  upon  express  warrant.  And,  in 
speaking  upon  the  subject  of  express  warrant, 
you  use  the  following  language — "  I  readily  grant, 
that  every  observance  which  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church  enjoins  by  express  precept,  is  indis- 
pensably binding."* 

Thus  you  openly  take  the  ground  that  no  exter- 
nal observance,  or  institution,  is  binding  upon 
Christians,  unless  it  can  be  shown  to  be  enjoined 
by  an  express  and  literal  command  of  Scrip- 
ture. Now,  you  contend  that  Presbyterial  ordi- 
nation, and  Presbyterial  Church  government,  in 
Church  Sessions,  Presbyterial  Assemblies,  and 
Synodical  Assemblies,  are  of  divine  and  unalter- 
able obligation;  while  you  admit,  in  so  many 
words,  that  no  express  warrant  can  be  produced 
for  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

Here  are  the  proofs.  "  As  the  Christian  minis- 
try is  an  office  deriving  its  existence  and  its  au- 
thority solely  from  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  obvious  that 
his  word  is  the  only  rule  by  which  any  claims  to 
this  office  can  properly  be  tried,  and  the  duties 
and  powers  of  those  who  bear  it,  ascertained. 
Let  us,  then,  examine  what  the  Scriptures  say 
on  the  point  in  dispute.  And  here  it  is  proper  to 
premise,  that  whoever  expects  to  find  any  formal 

*  Letters,  p.  14, 


540  COMPARISON  OF  DR.  MILLER  LET.   IX. 

or  EXPLICIT  decisions  on  this  subject,  delivered  by 
Christ  or  his  Apostles,  will  be  disappointed."* 
Still,  in  the  face  of  this  unequivocal  admission, 
you  expressly  say  that  Presbyterial  ordination  is 
essential  to  the  ministry,  and  to  the  validity  of 
the  scriptural  ordinances;  and  that  PresViyterial 
Church  2;overnment  is  the  primitive  form,  and 
binding  upon  Christians  in  all  places,  and  through- 
out all  time.f 

An  express  and  literal  command  of  Scripture  is 
necessary  to  render  any  outward  institution  bind- 
ing.! Presbyterial  Church  government  does  not 
rest  upon  any  express  command  of  Scripture.^ 
But  Presbyterial  Church  government  is  of  divine 
and  unalterable  obligation.  || 

Nothing  but  a  very  bad  cause,  Sir,  could  pos- 
sibly run  you  into  such  gross  contradictions. 


*  Letters,  p.  25,  26. 

•f  "  None  are  regularly  invested  with  the  ministerial  character,  or  can 
with  propriety  be  recoi^nized  in  this  character,  bill  those  who  have  been 
set  apart  to  the  office  by  persons  lawfully  clothed  with  the  power  of  or- 
dainin.e:."'^  "  It  is  only  so  far  as  ant/  succession  flows  through  the  line 
of  Presbyters,  that  it  is  either  regular  or  valid.  It  is  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Fresbytery,  that  constitutes  a  scriptural  ordination."* 

Thus  the  PresbUerial  mode  is  necessary  to  outward  ordination,  and 
outward  ordmation  is  necessary  to  all  ministerial  acts. 

"Christiaiis,  in  all  ages,  are  bound  to  make  the  Apostolic  order  of 
the  Church,  with  respect  to  the  ministry,  as  well  as  other  points,  the 
model,  as  far  as  possible,  of  all  their  ecclesiastical  arrangements."*^ 
*'  Tlve  Presbyterian  form  of  Church  government  is  the  truly  primitive 
and  Apostolic  form."'^  So  that  Christians  are  under  a  divine  and  un- 
alterable obligation  to  conform  to  Presbyterial  Church  order. 

*  Letters,  p.  14.  $  Ibid.  p.  2G. 

jj  Ibid.  p.  70,  connected  with  p.  8. 

<*  Letters,  p.  3.  A  ibid.  p.  437.  '^  Ibid-  p-  S.  d  Jhij.  p,  70. 


LET.  IX.  WITH  HIMSELF.  341 

V.  At  one  time,  you  speak  of  outward  forms 
in  a  very  dispara2;ing  way ;  at  another,  you  not 
only  represent  them  as  in :|)orlant,  but  go  so  far 
as  to  make  them  essential  to  the  existence  of 
piety.  You  fmd  fault  ^\ith  your  opponents  for  the 
stress  which  they  lay  upon  external  order,  and 
yet  you  lay  more  stress  upon  it  than  any  Episco- 
palian that  ever  lived. 

For  example — after  admitting  that  some  reli- 
gious associations,  which  are  not  organized  exactly 
upon  the  Presbyterian  model,  display,  neverthe- 
less, an  unalTected  piety,  you  use  the  following 
language: — "  If  we  undertook  to  maintain  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  only  real  Church 
on  earth,*  and  alone  in  covenant  with  Christ  the 
head,  such  a  fact  would  indeed  present  a  diffi- 
culty of  no  easy  solution. "t 

The  principle  here  recognized,  is,  simply,  that 
the  existence  of  unaffected  piety  out  of  the  visible 
Churchy  if  it  be  not  a  thing  impossible,  is,  at  least, 
one  for  which  it  must  be  very  difficult  to  ac- 
count. 

*  It  Is  quite  in  vain  for  you  to  say  that  you  do  not  make  the  Presby- 
terian Church  the  only  real  Church  upon  earth.  The  ministry  is  ne- 
cessary to  the  Church  ;  outward  ordination  is  necessary  to  the  ministry ; 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  is  necessary  to  outward 
ordination.  N;iy,  Sir,  struggle  not — you  have  no  escape  : — it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  you  and  your  religious  standards  make  Prtsbyterial  ordination 
absolutely  necL-ssary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  and  lo  all  cove- 
nanted possibility  of  salvation.  If  we  happen  to  have  Tresl  yti-rial  or- 
dination, it  is  very  well  ;  if  not,  we  are  aliens  from  the  coinmomiealti 
of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise. 

With  what  exquisite  consistency  do  complaints  of  the  exclusive 
claims  of  others  flow  from  your  lips  ! 

I  Letters,  p.  344. 


342  coMPAKiaoN  of  dr.  miller       let.  IX. 

Now,  Sir,  how  is  it  possible  to  attach  greater 
value  to  external  order?  So  much  value  has  cer- 
tainly never  been  attached  to  it  by  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy.  While  they  contend  that  the  vi- 
sible Church  is  Episcopal ;  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
all  men  to  enter  this  Church;  that  her  institutions 
have  a  greater  tendency  to  promote  real  piety 
than  institutions  not  validly  administered,  even 
supposing  such  invalidity  to  be  the  result  of  invo- 
luntary error;  ihey,  nevertheless,  freely  admit 
that  unaffected  piety  may  exist  among  those  who, 
through  excusable  ignorance  or  prejudice,  are  in 
a  state  of  separation  from  her ;  and  are  very  far 
from  regarding  the  existence  of  piety  without  her 
pale  as  a  phenomenon  extremely  difficult  to  be 
understood. 

Thus  inconsistent  are  you  with  yourself;  in  one 
page  treating  external  order  as  a  matter  of  very 
little  importance;  in  another,  representing  it  as 
almost  essential  to  true  devotion.  And  it  is  per- 
fectly clear  that  you  lay  greater  stress  upon  it  than 
those  whose  pretended  predilection  for  it,  fur- 
nishes you  with  so  frequent  a  subject  of  declama- 
tion. 

VI.  To  the  doctrine  that  Episcopacy  is  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  the  visible  Church,  you 
object,  that  it  places  a  point  of  external  order 
upon  a  par  with  the  essence  of  religion.* 

»  "While  they  (the  advocates  of  Episcopacy)  grant  that  God  has  left 
men  at  liherty  to  modify  every  other  kind  of  government  according  to 
rircimistunces,  they  contend  that  one  form  of  government  for  the 
CUurcli  is  unalterably  fixed  by  divine  appointment ;  that  this  form  is 


LET.  IX.  WITH    HIMSELF.  343 

Now,  this  proceeds  upon  the  supposition,  that 
the  visible  Church  and  the  essence  of  rchgion 
are  synonymous;  at  all  events,  that  they  stand 
upon  precisely  equal  ground.  For,  surely,  the 
doctrine  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  visible  Church,  cannot  place  Epis- 
copacy upon  a  par  with  the  essence  of  reliirion, 
unless  the  visible  Church  be  upon  a  par  \vith  that 
essence.  But  the  visible  Church,  its  ministry 
and  its  ordinances,  are  all  outward  matters 

External  order  is  not  upon  a  par  with  the  es- 
sence of  religion.  This  is  the  language  of  your 
objection. 

External  order  is  upon  a  par  with  the  essence 
of  religion.  This  is  the  principle  of  your  objec- 
tion. 

Thus  you  ground  your  argument  upon  the  very 
doctrine  which  you  bring  it  to  overthrow. 

VII.  There  is  a  strange  and  complicated  incon- 
sistency in  what  you  say  on  the  subject  of  unin- 
terrupted succession. 

You  give  us  to  understand  that  it  is  very  doubt- 
ful  whether  an  uninterrupted  succession  be  essen- 
tial to  the  ministry  ;*  and  still  assert  in  the  most 

Episcopal ;  that  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church  ; 
that,  of  course,  wherever  it  is  wanting,  there  is  no  Church,  no  regular 
ministry,  no  valid  ordinances.**  «  Against  these  exorbitant  claims, 
there  is,  prior  to  all  inquiry  into  their  evidence,  a  strong  general  pre- 
sumption for  the  following  reasons:  First — It  is  placing  a  point  of  ex- 
ternal order  upon  a  par  with  the  essence  of  religion."  Letters,  p.  13,  14. 
*  "  I  shall  not  attempt  at  present  to  discuss  the  question  whether  un- 
interrupted succession  is  essential  to  the  Christian  ministry.  On  this 
question  the  most  learned  and  pious  Episcopal  divines  have  been  di- 
vided in  opinion.    But  witlmut  entoring^  into  the  controversy,  I  vviH 


34^i  COMPARISON  OF    DR.  MILLER         LET.  IX. 

positive  terms  that  the  ministerial  office  can  be 
perpetiiatcvl  only  in  the  way  of  outward  ordina- 
tion, received  through  that  succession  which  flows 
in  the  line  of  Presbyters.*  But,  surely,  if  it  be 
doui.'tful  whether  succrssion  be  necessary  to  the 
ministrv,  it  must  be  equally  doubtful  whether 
Presbi/terial  succession  be  necessary.  How  can  it 
be  crrtain  (hat  a  particular  succession  is  essential 
to  the  conveyance  of  the  sacerdotal  office,  Avhen 
it  is  (loub'fid  whether  any  succession  be  essential 
to  its  conveyance  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  simplest  rules  of  logic,  that 
there  be  nothing  in  the  conclusion  but  what  is 
contained  in  the  premises;  inasmuch  as  the  con- 
clusion is  derived  from  the  premises. 

Ordination  is  essential  to  the  ministry — the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  is,  and  ever 

take  for  granted  that  the  uninterrupted  succession  is  essential;  that  it 
is  the  only  cU  mncl  through  wliich  ministers  of  the  present  duy  can  have 
the  \p  istolic  commission  transmitted  to  thcm."f 

This  is  evidently  the  languai^e  of  doubt  and  of  hesitation. 

*  "  "iVe  believe  that  none  are  regularly  invested  with  the  ministerial 
character  but  those  who  have  been  set  apart  to  the  office  by  persons 
lawfully  clotlied  with  the  power  of  ordaining."t  "The  right  of  ordi- 
nation, according  to  Scripture  and  primitive  usage,  belongs  to  Presby* 
ters."  "  It  is  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Prcsb}  tery  that  consti- 
tutes a  Scriptural  ordination."  "  It  is  only  so  far  as  any  succession 
flows  through  the  line  of  Presbyters,  that  it  is  either  regular  or  va- 

Ud.''§ 

What  can  be  more  explicit  ?  Outward  ordination  is  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  minister  of  Christ.  This  ordmation  can  be  validly  performed 
only  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  The  succession 
by  whi-.h  the 'sacerdotal  office  is  conveyed  from  one  generation  to  an^^ 
ihcr,  is  confined  to  the  Presbyterial  line. 

t  Letters,  p.  345,  346.  +  Ibid.  p.  8.  §  Ibiil.  p.  347 


LET.  IX.  IVTTH    HIMSELF.  S45 

has  been  essential  to  ordination; — of  course,  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  is  and 
ever  has  been  essential  to  the  ministry.  Now,  to 
lose  that  which  is  essential  to  the  ministry,  is  to 
lose  the  ministry  itself;  as  to  lose  that  which  is 
essential  to  life,  is  to  lose  life  itself.  Thus  to  lose 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery, 
which  is  necessary  to  the  ministerial  office,  is  to 
lose  the  ministerial  office.  And  what  is  this  but 
saying  that  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  Pres* 
byterial  hands  is  essential  to  the  ministry.'^ 

So  that  whether  we  attend  to  your  express  decla* 
rations^  or  to  the  obvious  consequences  of  the  po- 
sitions  which  you  lay  doivn,  we  have  you  in  one 
page  doubting  whether  any  succession  be  essential 
to  the  ministerial  office,  and,  in  another,  vncquivo- 
cally  asserting  that  the  Presbytcrial  line  of  succes* 
sion  is  essential  to  that  office. 

Further—"  That  the  succession  in  this  ministry 
will  be  kept  up  in  the  same  exact  manner  in  every 
age,  I  consider  neither  Scripture  nor  common 
sense  as  requiring  me  to  believe."^ 

If  we  consult  your  first  Series  of  Letters,  we 
find  that  the  ministerial  office  can  be  bestowed 
only  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presby- 
tery; that  it  can  be  conveyed  from  one  generation 
to  another  only  through  the  line  of  Presbytcrial 
succession; — but  all  this  is  rejected  in  your  second 
Series  of  Letters  with  contempt;  for  there  we  are 
told,  that  the  idea  of  an  exact  manner  of  keepings 

"  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  425 

44 


34:6  COMPARISON  OF  DK.  MILLER  LET.  IX- 

up  the  succession  from  age  to  age,  is  repugnant 
both  to  Scripture  and  common  sense. 

Still  further— After  expressly  declaring  that  "  it 
is  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery 
that  constitutes  a  scriptural  ordination,"  and  that 
"  it  is  only  so  far  as  any  succession  flows  through 
the  line  of  Presbyters  that  it  is  either  scriptural  or 
valid,"*  vou  scruple  not  to  use  the  following  very 
extraordinary  language—"  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying,  that  if  it  were  to  be  discovered,  that,  about 
two  hundred  or  five  hundred  years  ago,  the  regular 
succession  of  our  ordinations  had  been  really  in- 
terrupted by  some  ecclesiastical  oversight  or  dis- 
order, I  should  not  consider  it  as  in  the  least  de- 
gree affecting  either  the  legitimacy  of  our  present 
ministry,    or    the    validity   of   our   present   ordi- 

nances."t 

Can  I  be  blamed  for  saying  that  I  am  abso- 
lutely unable  to  determine  what  your  opinions 
really  are  ? 

Ordaining  acts  are  valid  only  when  performed 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery ; 
succession  is  valid  only  when  it  flows  through  the 
line  of  Presbyters ;!  and  yet  it  is  entirely  imma- 
terial whether  this  succession  has  been  interrupted 
or  not. 

The  only  scriptural  or  lawful  method  of  con- 
veying the  sacerdotal  office,  is  external  ordination, 
received  in  the  Presbyterial  line  of  succession; 
and  still  it  is  of  no  kind  of  consequence  whether 

•  Letters,  p.  347.  f  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  425. 

^  Letters,  p.  S'iT- 


IrET.  IX,  WITH  HIMSKLF.  347 

this  line  of  succession  has  or  has  not  become  ex- 
tinct * 

I  might  now  proceed  to  institute  a  strict  com- 
parison between  the  views  which  you  present  of 
the  visible  Church  and  its  ordinances,  and  the 
doctrines  which  are  set  forth  in  the  sacred  writ- 
ings; but  this  has  been  very  much  anticipated  in 
the  comparison  already  run  between  yoii  and  the 
standards  of  your  religious  society;  for,  the  points 
in  which  you  differ,  in  this  respect,  from  your 
public  formularies,  are  those  in  which  you  differ, 
also,  from  the  language  of  Scripture.  Without 
pursuing  this  part  of  the  subject,  therefore,  I  here 
relinquish  the  unpleasant  task  of  pointing  out 
your  inconsistencies,  and  bring  the  present  letter 
to  a  conclusion. 

*  The  succession  of  the  ministry  will  never  perish,  because  Godlias 
expressly  promised  to  be  with  it  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  But  admit, 
for  the  sake  of  testing  a  principle,  that  the  succession  should  be  inter- 
rupted— How  would  the  priestly  office  be  to  be  conferred  ?  There  would 
be  no  person  on  earth,  according  to  the  supposition,  possessed  of  the 
ordaining-  power.  It  follows  that  the  sacerdotal  office  would  perish  un- 
less God  should  be  pleased  again  miraculously  to  interpose.  To  call 
this  proposition  in  question,  is  to  take  the  ground  that  man  possesses 
the  intrinsic  power  of  creating  ambassadors  of  Christ.  Suppose  we 
should  lose  all  the  copies  of  the  Bible — Could  we  make  another  Bible 
for  ourselves  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  Bible  would  be  lost,  except 
so  far  as  it  might  be  accurately  retained  in  the  memory,  until  God  should 
think  proper  supernaturally  to  restore  it  ?  There  is  a  perfect  analogy, 
in  this  particular,  between  the  Bible  and  the  Priesthood.  An  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  true  copies  is  necessary  to  the  former  ;  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  true  ordainers  is  necessary  to  the  latter.  If  either 
succession  be  realli/  interrupted,  the  interruption  must  be  fatal  until 
God  shall  be  pleased  to  interpose;  for  man  can  no  more  supply  the  loss 
of  the  Priesthood  than  the  loss  of  tlie  sacred  volume.  It  is  not  more 
the  prerogative  of  Christ  to  reveal  his  own  will,  than  to  constitute  his 
own  agents.  We  have  just  as  much  right,  surely,  to  declare  his  plea- 
.^ire,  as  to  transact  his  business. 


(    348    ) 

LETTER  X. 
MISCELLJi?rEOUS. 

Sir, 

X  Have  noticed,  I  believe,  the  most  important 
parts  of  your  book  which  relate  to  me ;  but  1  pro- 
pose, now,  in  a  miscellaneous  way,  to  remark  on 
some  things  which  could  not  well  have  been  in" 
troduced  under  any  specific  head,  and  to  comment, 
particularly^  upon  various  passages  of  your  Letters, 
to  which  a  general  attention  has  already  been  paid. 
This  last  will,  doubtless,  involve  a  degree  of  re- 
petition. I  flatter  myself,  however,  that  it  will  be 
the  means  of  presenting  the  subject  in  some  new 
points  of  light,  and  of  exposing,  more  minutely, 
those  arts  of  evasion  to  which  you  have  had  re- 
course, for  the  purpose  of  concealing  the  true  doc- 
trine of  your  religious  standards,  as  well  as  of  im-r 
puting  tenets  of  a  peculiarly  obnoxious  character 
to  your  opponents  in  the  present  controversy. 

In  the  seventeenth  page  of  your  first  Series  of 
Letters,  you  took  the  liberty  of  speaking  of  some 
late  and  distinguished  writers  in  Great-Britain, 
in  a  way  calculated  to  expose  them,  and  the 
Church  of  which  they  are  the  advocates,  to  uni- 
versal contempt  and  scorn. 

"  Several  distinguished  writers  in  Great-Britain, 
who  have  lately  espoused,  with  much  warmth, 
the  exclusive  Episcopal  notions  under  considera- 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  349 

tion,  do  not  srmple  to  adopt  and  avow  this  infer- 
ence, at  least  in  substance.  They  assert  that  all 
who  are  in  communion  with  the  Episcopal  Church, 
are  in  the  sure  road  to  salvation.  And,  accord- 
ingly, they  turn  into  riihcule  every  attempt  to  dis- 
tinguish between  a  professing  Episcopalian  and  a 
real  Christian.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add 
that  many  of  the  divines  of  their  own  Church  re- 
ject tliis  doctrine  with  al.horrencc,  and  have  pub- 
licly pronounced  it  to  be  as  repugnant  to  Scrip- 
ture, as  it  is  dangerous  to  the  souls  of  men."* 

This  is  a  most  cruel  misrepresentation. 

Every  professing  Episcopalian  must,  of  neces- 
sity, be  a  saint.  All  who  are  in  communion  with 
the  Episcopal  Church  will,  infallibly,  be  saved. 
Such  is  the  construction  which  nine  out  of  ten 
of  your  readers  will  put  upon  your  language;  it 
is,  in  fact,  the  only  construction  which  your  lan- 
guage will  admit.  And,  accordingly,  you  mark 
the  doctrine  as  of  a  nature  to  excite  sentiments  of 
deep  abhorrence  in  every  virtuous  bosom.  Indeed, 
supposing  your  representation  to  be  correct,  I 
should  pronounce  the  writers  in  question  not  bigots^ 
hut  fools;  not  absurd  devotees^  but  perfect  madmen. 
You  here  impute  to  the  authors  whom  you  attack, 
a  degree  of  airogance  and  folly  which  can  scarcely 
be  charged  upon  the  most  hardy  advocates  of  the 
Romish  Church,  in  the  darkest  and  most  supersti- 
tious periods  of  its  history.  What  defender  of  the 
papacy  ever  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  every  pro- 
fessing Catholic  is,  of  necessity,  a  saint;  or,  which 

*  Letters,  p.  ir. 


350  mSCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

follows  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  none  who  arc 
in  communion  with  the  Romish  Church  can  pos- 
sibly fail  of  salvation  ?  I  am  astonished  that  you 
should  not  have  seen,  in  a  moment,  that  the 
charge  under  consideration,  refutes  itself  by  its 
very  absurdity. 

The  writers  in  question  go  no  further  than  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith;  saying,  with 
that  Confession,  that  "  there  is  no  covenanted  pos- 
sibility of  salvation  out  of  the  visible  Church."* 
On  this  point,  then,  not  the  smallest  difference  of 
opinion  exists  between  the  individuals  to  whom 
you  allude,  and  your  own  religious  society.  That 
the  promises  of  the  Gospel  are  made  exclusively 
to  the  visible  Church,  is  the  common  doctrine  of 
both.  And  you  very  well  know,  that  the  Chris- 
tian's Magazine,  on  which  you  bestow  so  high 
praise,  lays  down  the  same  principle  in  the  most 
explicit  terms — "  All  the  ordinances  are  given  to 
the  visible  Church — all  the  promises  are  made  to 
it."t 

So  far  from  alleging  that  the  members  of  the"' 
visible  Church  cannot  fail  of  salvation,  the  writers 
in  question  expressly  represent  that  Church  as 
composed  of  good  and  bad  individuals,  and  ex- 
pressly declare  that  the  membership  of  the  latter 
will  only  aggravate  their  condemnation.  So  far 
from  saying  that  every  professing  Episcopalian  is 
a  real  Christian,  in  other  words,  a  saint,  they  la- 

•  Presbyterinn  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  2.     Larger  Ca- 
techism, questifnis  162  and  166. 

f  Christian's  Mugazine,  vol.  i.  p.  150. 


LET.  X,  MISCETLANEOUS.  sjbl 

ment,  that  too  many  members  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  tail  to  imbibe  the  spirit  of  her  excellent 
institutions;  thus  having  a  name  to  live,  while,  in 
reality,  they  are  dead. 

In  my  first  Series  of  Letters,  I  took  particular 
notice  of  the  charge  under  consideration,  and 
called  for  your  proof.  What  is  your  reply  ?  "  I 
have  not  only  not  intentionally  misrepresented 
any  one,  but  am  also  still  persuaded  that  I  fell 
into  no  real  error.  But,  however,  this  may  be, 
all  that  I  said  was  advanced  on  the  authority  of  a 
respectable  divine  of  the  Church  of  England,  now 
living,  who  expresses  himself  in  the  following 
words."* 

Thus  you  make  a  violent  attack  upon  the  cha- 
racter of  Daubeny;  imputing  to  him  opinions  the 
most  absurd  and  detestable,  and,  w^hen  called 
upon  for  your  proof,  you  have  nothing  to  furnish 
but  an  extract  from  the  w^ork  of  his  professed  op- 
ponent. This  extract,  too,  gives  us  no  specific 
passages  from  the  writings  of  Daubeny ;  it  merely 
exhibits  the  distorted  constructions  of  a  very  un- 
candid  adversary.  The  works  of  Daubeny  are 
easily  to  be  procured  in  this  city.  Why  did  you 
not  give  us  the  very  passages  in  which  the  obnox- 
ious opinions,  that  you  impute  to  him,  are  set 
forth  ?  The  fact  is,  Daubeny  not  only  expresses 
no  such  opinions  as  Overton  has  thought  proper 
to  ascribe  to  him,  but  openly  and  unequivocally 
disclaims  them  as  equally  detestable  and  absurd. 

*  Gontinuation  of  Letters,  p.  fC 


35^  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X* 

**  Even  admitting,  (what  we  cannot  admit,  for 
we  know  the  contrary,)  that  the  question  whe- 
ther Episcopacy  was,  in  fact^  the  primitive  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  were  decided  in  favour 
of  our    Episcopal    brethren ;    still   another   ques- 
tion remains,  viz.  Is  a  compliance  with  that  con- 
Utitution  so  unalterably  and  indispensably  binding 
on  the  Church,  that  there  can  be  no  Church,  no 
ministry,  no  ordinances,  without  it  ?    These  ques^ 
tions   are   totally   distinct,  and   never  to  be  con- 
founded.    Yet  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  Hoic  almost 
uniformly  confound  them  ;  and  seem  to  think  that 
if  the  former  question  be  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive,   the  latter  must  of  course  be   answered  in 
a  similar  manner.     In  a  few  instances,   indeed^ 
they  admit  the  distinction  to  which  I  allude,  and 
assert,  that  their  only  object  is  to  establish  the 
Apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy,  without  un- 
dertaking to  pronounce  on  the  consequences  of 
rejecting  it.     But  it  is  evident  that,  for  the  most 
part,  they  entirely   lose  sight  of  this  distinction, 
and  write  as  if  the  establishment  of  the  fact,  that 
prelacy  existed  in  the  primitive  Church,  must  ef* 
fectually  destroy  the  character  of  all   Churches 
not  found  in  possession  of  that  form  of  govern* 
ment.     Whether  these   positions,  so   totally   dis- 
tinct,  are  so  generally  confounded  by  my  oppo- 
nents for  want  of  clear  and  dislinguishing  views, 
or  with  design,  I  presume  not  to  say.     But  every 
discerning  reader  will  be  on  his  guard  against  im- 
position from  either  source."* 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  23,  24 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  353 

This  passage  really  surprises  me.  I  am  sure 
you  would  not  wilfully  misrepreseut.  You  must, 
tlien,  have  read  the  works  to  which  you  allude 
with  very  strange  eyes.  In  truth,  the  whole  of 
what  you  here  say,  is  without  even  the  shadow  of 
a  foundation. 

The  great  object  of  Dr.  Bowden  is  to  prove  the 
Apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy:  he  expressly 
and  repeatedly  says  tliat  it  is  not  his  purpose  to 
inquire  into  the  consequences  of  the  doctrine.  If 
Episcopacy  be  of  divine  institution,  such  socie^ 
ties  as  lay  it  aside,  must  be,  at  all  events,  in  an 
unsound  and  imperfect  state.  Whether  in  laying 
it  aside  they  actually  lose  the  Church  character, 
is  a  question  which  Dr.  Bowden,  more  than  once, 
tells  his  readers  he  does  not  undertake  to  discuss. 
Thus,  the  two  questions,  which  you  represent 
Dr.  Bowden  as  perpetually  confounding,  he  al- 
ways separates,  and  always  treats  as  distinct. 

You  have  strangely  misunderstood  him. 

Nor  have  you  less  misunderstood  my  Letters. 

Of  the  two  principles,  which  you  charge  me 
with  invariably  confounding,  I  show,  by  a  regular 
course  of  argument,  that  the  one  follows  irresisti- 
bly from  the  other. 

Thus — The  ministry  is  essential  to  the  existence 
of  the  visible  Churcli ;  but  no  man  can  be  a  mi- 
nister of  Christ  without  a  regular  external  com- 
mission ;  and  this  commission  can^  be  bestowed 
only  by  vijlue  of  authority  from  Christ.  Now, 
our  blessed  Saviour  constituted  the  Apostles, 
Prief^ts  and  Governors  of  his  Church ;  emppw^er- 

45 


^54  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

ing  them  to  regulate  its  aflViirs,  and  to  provide  for 
its  continuance.  The  Apostles,  acting  under  the 
commission,  and  in  conformity  to  the  will  of 
Christ;  guided,  moreover,  by  the  supernatural 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  established  distinct  and 
subordinate  grades  of  ministers;  giving  to  the 
highest  grade  the  exclusive  power  of  ordaining. 
Thus,  Episcopacy  is  the  divinely  instituted  me- 
thod of  perpetuating  the  sacerdotal  office. 

The  sacerdotal  office  is  essential  to  the  exis- 
tence of  the  Church ;  Episcopal  ordination  is  the 
divinely  instituted  method  of  perpetuating  the  sa- 
cerdotal office ;  therefore  Episcopal  ordination  is 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church. 

We  do  not  rest  the  obligation  of  Episcopacy  on 
the  ground  of  its  existence  in  the  primitive  Church, 
but  on  the  ground  that  the  Apostles,  acting  under 
the  commission,  and  in  conformity  to  the  will  of 
Christ,  established  it  as  the  regular  s.nd  permanejit 
method  of  conferring  the  sacerdotal  power.  Un- 
til, then,  a  change  be  made  by  divine  authority, 
Episcopacy  and  the  sacerdotal  power  cannot  be 
separated  ;  having  been  connected  by  Jesus  Christ, 
by  him  only  can  their  connexion  be  dissolved.* 

*  To  say  that  the  Apostles,  acting-  agreeably  to  the  commission  and 
to  the  will  of  Christ,  established  Episcopacy,  is  to  say  that  Christ  es- 
tablished it. 

Well,  tlie  supposition  is,  that  Christ  established  distinct  grades  of 
miiAisters,  and  conferred  upon  the  highest  grade  the  exclusive  power  of 
ordaining.  When  a  minister  of  the  highest  grade,  then,  ordains,  Christ 
ordains;  when  a  minister  of  the  second  g-rude  ordains,  it  is  not  Christ 
that  ordains,  but  man.  Thus  Episcopal  ordination  confers  the  sacerdo- 
tal office  ;  Presbyterial  ordination  does  not  If,  therefore,  the  former 
or^inaVion  be  laid  aside,  and  the  latter  be  substitllted  in  its  place,  the 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  355 

Thus,  instead  of  confouiidinj^  the  principle  oi' 
the  apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy  with  that 
of  its  necessity  to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  I 
show,  by  a  train  of  reasoning,  tliat  the  one  leads 
directly  to  the  other.  When  a  man  states  two 
principles  distinctly,  and  makes  it  his  object  to 
prove  that  the  one  flows  from  the  other,  how  ab- 
surd is  it  to  charge  him  with  confounding  them! 

"  These  gentlemen,  indeed,  themselves  assert, 
with  the  whole  body  of  Episcopal  writers,  that 
the  Apostles  never  intended  to  lay  down  a  model 

sacerdotal  office  must  cease  to  exist ;  and  as  thei'c  can  be  no  Church 
without  a  ministry,  the  Church  must  cease  to  exist  also. 

Man  can  no  more  make  a  minister  of  Christ  than  he  can  make  a  Bi- 
ble. The  sacerdotal  power  can  come  only  from  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  ;  and  it  can  come  from  him  only  in  the  way  of  his  appointment. 
A  person  who  undertakes  to  exercise  power  in  the  name  of  another, 
must  show  a  commission  from  him,  or  from  some  one  whom  he  has  au- 
thorized to  give  commissions.  Now,  if  Episcopacy  was  established  by 
the  Apostles,  in  conformity  to  the  will  of  Christ,  Episcopacy  is  the 
method  which  Christ  has  appointed  to  convey  his  own  power;  and  it 
must  continue  until  he  shall  think  proper  to  alter  it.  If  a  man  should 
appoint  three  distinct  orders  of  agents,  and  give  to  the  first  order  the 
exclusive  power  of  appointing  other  agents,  all  persons  appointed  by 
such  order  would  be  his  lawful  officers ;  but  if  the  second  order  of  his 
agents  should  undertake  to  appoint  inferior  agents,  the  persons  so  ap- 
pointed would  not  be  his  lawful  officers,  and  could  not  possibly  bind 
him  by  their  acts.  The  principle  is  perfectly  clear  and  simple.  Christ 
possesses  the  fulness  of  the  sacerdotal  authority ;  of  which  the  power 
of  ordination  is  a  part.  He  may  delegate  it  or  not,  as  he  pleases.  He 
may  delegate  it  to  whom  he  pleases.  If  he  has,  according  to  the  sup- 
position, appointed  three  distinct  grades  of  officers,  and  given  the  ex- 
clusive power  of  ordination  to  the  first  grade,  he  has  established  a  par- 
ticular method  of  conveying  his  own  power ;  and  his  power  can  be  ob- 
tained only  in  that  method  until  he  shall  think  proper  to  appoint  a  dif- 
ferent method.  So  that  Episcopacy  is  binding,  not  because  it  was  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  but  because  the  power  of  Christ 
must  be  derived  from  Christ,  and  his  power  can  be  obtained  only  m 
the  way  whi©li  he  has  appointed  for  bcstov/ing  it. 

\ 


556  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

of  Church  government,  which  should  be,  in  all 
its  parts,  perpetually  binding;  and,  of  course,  that 
the  Church  is  not  bound  to  be,  in  all  respects, 
conformed  to  the  apostolic  model.  I  am  not  now 
inquiring  whether  this  doctrine  be  correct  or  not. 
But  if  it  be,  how  can  the  want  of  prelacy  destroy 
the  character  and  even  the  existence  of  the 
Church?  In  what  part  of  Scripture  is  it  said, 
that  every  other  part  of  the  apostohc  government 
of  the  Church  is  mutable,  and  may  be  modified 
by  human  wisdom  ;  but  that  dispensing  with  the 
single  point  of  Bishops  is  fatal  to  the  whole?"* 

"  I  am  not  now  inquiring  whether  this  doctrine 
be  correct  or  not."    Mark  this !    You  advocate  the 
ri2:id  doctrine,  that  a  form  of  Church  government 
is  drawn  out,  in  all  its  parts,  in  Scripture ;  and 
that  Christians,  in   all  places,  and  throughout  all 
time,  are  under  the  most  sacred  obligation  to  con- 
form to  it.    You  tell  us,  expressly,  that  the  form  of 
Church  government,  thus  drawn  out  in  Scripture, 
is  the  Presbyterial  format  and  so  maintain  that  all 
Christians  are  bound  to  manage  their  ecclesiastical 
concerns  in  the  precise  way  of  Church  Sessions, 
Presbyterial  Assemblies,    and  vSynodical  Assem- 
blies.    Is  it  not,  then,   very  surprising  that  you 
should  complain  of  the  extent  to  which  Episcopa- 
lians carry  their  ideas  of  outward  order  ?     But  on 
this  part  of  the  subject  I  have  already  said  more 
than  enough:  I  notice  it  here,  simply  to  show  that 
you  never  sutler  the  subject  to  pass  without  either 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  24.  f  Letters,  p.  70. 


\ 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  3o7 

decisively  expressing  your  opinion,  or,  at  least, 
entering  a  solemn  protest,  which  shall  protect  you 
from  being  considered  as  entertaining  the  slightest 
doubt  of  (he  divine  and  unalterable  o])ligation  oi 
the  whole  frame  of  your  ecclesiastical  polity. 

But  the  paragraph  before  us  presents  a  curioup 
specimen  of  reasoning. 

The  Apostles  did  not  intend  to  lay  down. a  mo- 
del of  Church  government  which  should  be  bind- 
ing in  Af,L  ITS  PARTS  ;  therefore,  they  did  not  in- 
tend to  lay  down  a  model  which  should  be  bind- 
ing in  ANY    OF    ITS    PARTS. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  Church  should  be 
conformed,  in  all  points,  to  the  Apostolic  mo- 
del ;  therefore,  it  is  not  necessary  that  she  should 
be  conformed  in  any  points,  to  that  model. 

Such  is  the  reasoning  upon  which  the  paragraph 
before  us  is  founded. 

Let  us  try  whether  we  can  find  its  parallel. 

All  the  truths  of  Scripture  do  not  enter  into  the 
essence  of  the  Christian  scheme;  therefore,  none 
of  the  truths  of  Scripture  enter  into  the  essence 
of  that  scheme.  Belief  of  every  individual  truth 
of  Scripture  is  not  necessary  to  salvation;  there- 
fore, belief  of  no  truth  of  Scripture  is  necessary 
to  salvation. 

Thus  your  reasoning  would  annihilate  all  dis- 
tinction between  things;  placing  all  Apostolic 
practices  upon  precisely  the  same  lev^el,  and  mak- 
ing all  scriptural  truths  to  be  of  exactly  equal 
importance. 

The  advocates  of  Episcopacy,   you  tell  your 


3o?j  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

readers,  admit  that  the  Apostles  did  not  establish 
a  form  of  Church  government  with  the  intent  that 
it  shoukl,  in  all  its  parts,  be  of  permanent  obli- 
gation. How,  then,  you  exclaim,  can  the  want 
of  prelacy  destroy  the  character,  and  even  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Church  ?  In  the  name  of  common 
sense,  what  connexion  is  there  between  the  pre- 
mises.and  the  conclusion  ?  Might  not  the  Apostles 
establish  a  ministry,  and  make  it  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  Church,  without  instituting  a 
precise  system  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  or  fixing 
the  exact  mode  of  regulating  the  detail  of  eccle- 
siastical affairs?  If  this  be,  in  its  own  nature,  pos- 
sible, as  it  undoubtedly  is,  your  reasoning  must 
be  absurd. 

Our  Church  has  ever  held,  that  the  sacred  writ- 
ings set  forth  no  immutable  system  of'  rites  and 
ceremonies,  and  no  complete  and  particular  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity;  but  she  has  always  most 
strenuously  contended  that  our  blessed  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles  created  a  spiritual  community, 
to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  that  they 
established,  in  this  community,  a  priesthood  as 
one  of  its  essential  constituents.  You  have  dis- 
covered, however,  that  these  opinions  are  incon- 
sistent ;  in  other  words,  that  our  Saviour  and  his 
Apostles  could  not  possibly  institute  a  permanent 
ministry,  without  instituting,  at  the  same  time,  an 
unchangeable  system  of  riles  and  ceremonies,  and 
fixing  even  the  precise  method  of  passing  all  kinds 
of  ecclesiastical  laws.  This,  certainly,  is  limit- 
ing  the  divine  power  in  a  very  strange  way. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  359 

"  In  what  part  of  Scrip! ure  is  it  said,  that  every 
other  part  of  the  ApostoUc  government  of  the 
Church  is  mutable,  and  may  be  modified  by  hu- 
man wisdom ;  but  that  dispensing  with  the  single 
point  of  Bishops  is  fatal  to  the  whole  r" 

The  Episcopal  constitution  of  the  ministry  may 
not  be  changed,  because  it  is  immutably  fixed 
by  divine  authority ;  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
public  worship,  and  the  particular  mode  of  exer- 
cising ecclesiastical  power,  may  be  changed,  be- 
cause they  are  not  immutably  fixed  by  divine  au- 
thority. All  this  we  have  proved  by  a  very  full 
examination  of  Scripture,  and  of  antiquity.  But 
you  are  not  satisfied.  You  require  us  to  produce 
specific  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which  the  doc- 
trine we  contend  for  is  laid  down  in  so  many  ivords. 

You  charge  us  with  inconsistency.  And  in  what 
does  our  inconsistency  consist  ?  We  maintain,  it 
seems,  that  the  priesthood  is  unalterable,  while 
we  admit  that  the  precise  method  of  organizing 
ecclesiastical  tribunals,  and  exercising  ecclesias- 
tical power,  are  not  particularly  fixed  in  Scripture, 
and  may,  therefore,  from  time  to  time,  be  changed. 
And  how  do  you  prove  that  there  is  inconsistency 
in  this  ?  Do  you  examine  into  the  nature  of  the 
respective  establishments,  and  show  that  they 
cannot  exist  in  a  state  of  separation?  Do  you  en- 
deavour to  prove  that  the  divine  and  unalterable 
institution  of  a  priesthood,  necessarily  draws  after 
it  the  divine  and  unalterable  institution  of  an  en- 
tire scheme  of  ecclesiastical  polity  ?     Do  you  en- 


360  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

tleavoiir  to  prove  that  a  power  of  change,  in  the 
business  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  necessarily  sup- 
poses a  power  of  cfiange  in  the  fundamental  ar- 
ticle of  the  ministry? 

If  you  couhi  establish  either  of  these  proposi- 
tions, you  would,  indeed,  fasten  upon  us  the  charge 
of  inconsistency.  But  you  do  not  even  make  an 
attempt  at  this.  What,  then,  is  the  amount  of 
your  proof?  The  Scriptures  no  where  speak  thus — 
Rites  and  ceremonies  may  be  changed^  but  the  priest- 
hood  is  unalterable. 

Now,  this  mode  of  reasoning  rests  upon  the 
principle,  that  no  institution  can  be  binding  upon 
the  Church,  and  that  no  power  can  be  exercised 
by  her,  unless  there  be  an  express  warrant  enjoin- 
ing the  institution,  or  delegating  the  power,  in  so 
MANY  >voKDs; — a  principle  which  must  involve 
the  faith,  the  ordinances,  and  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  in  promiscuous  ruin.  There  is,  certainly, 
no  express  passage  of  Scripture  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is,  in  so  many  words^  laid  down. 
We  prove,  from  an  examination  of  different  parts 
of  Scripture,  that  divine  attributes  are  ascribed  to 
three  distinct  persons,  and  that  these  distinct  per- 
sons possess  one  common  and  undivided  nature. 
Again — There  is  no  express  warrant  for  infant  bap- 
tism, for  the  Sabbath  of  the  first  day,  or  even  for 
the  priesthood;  that  is,  there  is  no  passage  of  the 
New  Testament  in  which  it  is  said,  in  so  many 
words^  that  infants  shall  be  baptized,  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week  shall  be  substituted  for  the  se- 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  361 

ventli,  as  the  Christian  Sabbath  f  or,  that  there 
shall  be  an  order  of  priesthood  in  the  Church,  as 

•  You  venture  to  pronounce  that  tlicrc  is  express  -u-arrant  for  Infant 
Baptism,  and  for  the  Sahl)ath  of  the  first  day;  hut  inst{ad  of  producing 
a  pjissag-c  of  Scripture,  declaring-,  in  so  many  words,  that  inlants  sliall 
be  baptized,  and  tliat  the  first  day  of  the  wtclc  shall  be  substituted  for 
tlie  seventh,  as  a  sacred  day,  you  enter  into  a  rcf^ular  arj^ument  on  the 
subject.  You  lay  down  two  propositions,  which,  you  say,  may  be 
proved  from  Scnpture ;  and  from  these  propositions  the  divine  right  of 
infant  baptism  is  to  be  deduced.  Having  gone  through  the  argument 
relative  to  infant  baptism,  you  proceed  to  obsei-ve,  "  Scarcely  less  evi- 
dent  is  the  scriptural  warrant  for  the  Christian  Sabbath."f  Pray,  Sir, 
what  do  you  mean  by  express  wanvmt?  Your  phraseology  is  so  ex- 
tremely loose,  that  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  precise  ideas  which 
you  intend  to  convey.  Now,  nothing  will  serve  as  a  basis  for  a  divine 
institution  but  an  exprc'ss  warrant  of  Scripture  ;  now,  it  is  quite  suffi- 
cient if  the  institutio:i  I>e  capable  of  be'mg  fairly  proved  from  Scripture. 
Is  there  no  difference  between  fairly  proving  a  thing  by  a  critical  exa- 
mination and  comparison  of  the  different  parts  of  the  sacred  volume, 
and  producing  for  it  what  is  called  an  express  ivarrant  ?  Express  -war- 
rant  stands  opposed  to  implicaiion,  inference,  a7ialogy ,-  it  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  reasoning  altogether.  When  we  have  express  warrant,  we 
are  uot  obliged  to  travel  out  of  the  passage  which  contains  it;  we  hare 
only  to  appeal  to  tlie  passage,  and  tile  dispute  is  at  an  end.  Well,  I 
call  upon  you  to  furnish  me  with  an  express  warrant  for  infant  baptism. 
Do  you  refer  me  to  any  passage  of  Scripture  which  expressly  prescribes 
this  institution?  Not  at  all.  You  say  that  the  divine  rigiit  of  infant 
Church  membership,  and  the  divine  right  of  baptism  to  all  Church 
members,  can  be  proved  from  Scripture.  The  antipadobaptist  would 
differ  from  you  on  this  subject.  Besides,  I  do  not  ask  you  what  can  be 
proved  from  Scripture ;  I  call  upon  you  to  show  me  an  express  ivarrant, 
which  puts  an  end  to  all  dispute,  and  makes  reasoning  superfluous. 

You  say  that  express  -warrant  is  necessary  to  render  an  institution 
binding,  and  then  proceed  to  prove  infant  baptism  by  inference  and 
analogy. 

You  say  that  there  is  no  express  warrant  on  the  subject  of  ecclesias- 
tical government,  and  yet  that  Presbyterial  Church  government  is  bind^ 
ing  upon  all  Christians,  throughout  all  ages. 

We  must  produce  express  warrant  for  Episcopacy,  but  you  are  under 
no  obligation  to  produce  it  for  I'resbytcry  ;  although  you  carry  tlie  la*, 
tev  much  further  th,';n  we  carry  the  fc  rmer. 

t  l-ettcrs,  p.  IQ?. 


SG'HL  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

distinct  from  its  other  members.  All  these  things, 
doubtless,  may  be  fairly  proved  from  Scripture ; 
and  so  it  may  be  fairly  proved,  that  the  ministry 
is  a  permanent  institution,  which  man  has  no  au- 
thority to  change,  while  rites  and  ceremonies, 
as  well  as  the  peculiar  organization,  according  to 
which  ecclesiastical  power  is  to  be  exercised,  are 
not  fixed  upon  any  unalterable  system,  but  are 
left  to  be  adapted  to  times  and  circumstances, 
by  the  exercise  of  human  discretion. 

Again — Is  there  any  passage  of  Scripture  which 
expressly  enumerates  the  canonical  books,  and 
commands  us  to  believe  them  ?  Where  is  it  said 
that  the  four  Gospels  were  written  by  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John ;  or  that  they  are  divinely 
inspired?  Now,  if  an  express  warrant  be  ne- 
cessary to  render  any  institution  obligatory  upon 
the  Church,  surely  such  warrant  must  be  indis- 
pensable in  the  important  article  of  ascertain- 
ing those  genuine  records  from  which  all  her 
doctrines  and  all  her  ordinances  are  to  be  de- 
rived. But  there  is  no  such  express  warrant 
with  respect  to  the  canon  of  Scripture ;  and  thus 
the  infidel,  with  the  weapons  which  you  put  into 
his  hands,  would  destroy,  with  perfect  ease,  the 
very  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Still  further — You  maintain  that  Presbyterial 
gcyvernment,  in  Church  Sessions,  Presbyterial  As- 
semblies, and  Synodical  Assembhes,  is  of  divine 
and  unalterable  obligation ;  but  you  will  not  pre- 
tend that  there  is  any  specific  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture like  the  following — *'  Ecclesiastical  aflairs,  in 


LET.  X,  MISCErXANEOUB.  36S 

all  parts  of  the  world,  and  throughout  all  timCj 
shall  be  governed  by  Church  Sessions,  Presbyterial 
Assemblies,  and  Synodical  Assemblies."  Indeed, 
you  scruple  not  to  admit,  in  so  many  words,  that 
our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  have  given  no  formal 
or  explicit  decisions  relative  to  the  ministry  and 
the  government  of  the  Church.  "  VVhile  the  Scrip- 
tures present  no  formal  or  explicit  decisions  on  this 
subject,  we  find  in  them  a  mode  of  expression^  and 
a  number  of  facts  ^  from  which  we  may,  without 
difficulty,  ascertain  the  outlines  of  the  Apostolic 
plan  of  Church  order."* 

You  appear  never  to  perceive  the  full  extent  of 
the  reasoning  which  you  direct  against  your  op- 
ponents. In  the  case  under  consideration,  your 
logic,  if  it  be  of  any  value,  completely  destroys 
your  own  doctrine  relative  to  ecclesiastical  polity, 
and,  what  is  much  worse,  overthrows  Christianity 
itself,  by  depriving  us  of  the  very  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

"  Mr.  How  endeavours  to  represent  my  work  as 
an  unprovoked  attack  on  the  Episcopal  Church, 
and  to  throw  upon  it  all  the  odium  of  aggression.^t 
The  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  when  your  first 
Series  of  Letters  appeared,  had  stated  and  de- 
fended the  principles  of  their  Church,  in  publica- 
tions addressed  to  their  own  people ;  or  they  had 
vindicated  their  own  character  and  conduct  against 
a  violent  attack  which  had  been  made  upon  them 
in  the  public  prints.    In  doing  this,  they  had  used  a 

*  ly'tters,  p,  27.  f  Continuation  of  I.ettn-s,  p.  26. 


364)  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

language  which  is  not  even  pretended  to  be  excep- 
tionable; and,  while  they  contended  strenuously 
for  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and  for  all 
the  doctrines  connected  with  this  principle,  they 
made  every  allowance  for  error  that  the  most  ex- 
tensive charity  can  claim  ;  placing  within  the  arms 
of  mercy  all  conscientious  inquirers  after  truth. 
It  is  to  be  recollected,  too,  that  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy  had  been  loni^  in  the  habit  of  directing 
against  it  the  most  contemptuous  expressions. 

Now,  what  is  the  treatment  which  we  have  re- 
ceived at  your  hands,  for  this  temperate  exercise 
of  a  sacred  and  universally  acknowledged  right? 

You  have  represented  us  as  wanton  disturbers  of 
religious  peace ;  nay,  you  have  held  us  up  to  the 
cotnmunity  as  odious  proscrihcrs  of  our  fellow 
Christians  of  other  denominations:  and  the  direct 
tendency  of  your  whole  work  is  to  impress  the 
opinion  that  we  maintain  the  infamous  tenet,  that 
salvation  is  absolutely  impossible  to  all  who  may 
be  out  of  the  pale  of  our  own  Church. 

Your  Letters,  then,  merit  to  be  considered  as 
an  "  unprovoked  attack.'^''  It  is  doing  them  nothing 
more  than  justice  to  entitle  them  an  "  ag^ression.'^^ 

"  Another  charge  which  these  gentlemen  concur 
in  urging,  is  no  less  unexpected  and  extraordinary. 
It  is,  that  I  have  written  with  great  bitterness,  and 
that  even  my  moderation  is  affected  and  insidious. 
This  is  a  point  concerning  which  no  man  can  be 
an  impartial  judge  in  his  own  case.  But,  after 
receiving  so  many  respectable  suiTrages  in  favour 
of  the  mildness  and  decorum  of  my  stvle;  after 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  365 

receiving  the  acknowledgments  of  so  many  mo- 
derate and  candid  Episcopalians  in  diQercMit  parts 
of  the  United  States,  both  cleii^ymen  and  laymen, 
that  I  had  avoided  asperily  to  a  very  unusual  de- 
gree; it  is  impossible  to  avoid  suspetting  that 
these  gentlemen  (who,  so  far  as  I  know,  stand 
alone  in  making  this  charge,)  have  felt  irritated  hy 
statements  which  they  could  not  (\eny,  and  by  ar- 
guments which  they  could  not  refute ;  and  that  they 
have  mistaken  both  for  bitterness  and  abuse."* 

I  have  conversed  with  a  number  of  pt^raous  who 
have  thoroughly  examined  your  Letters.  They 
unanimously  regard  them  as  conceived  in  a  style 
of  extreme  positiv^eness,  and  as  displaying  a  se- 
verity of  temper,  which,  notwithstanding  the  stu- 
died effort  to  conceal  it,  is  constantly  visible. 
And  I  do  most  conscientiously  declare,  that  they 
appear  to  me  to  possess  these  qualities  in  a  con- 
spicuous degree.  At  the  same  time,  1  :  cknovv- 
ledge  that  they  have  been  frequently  spoken  of  as 
remarkable  for  the  spirit  of  Catholicism  which 
they  breathe.  But  this  is  easily  accounted  for. 
The  bulk  of  men  examine  things  superlicially ; 
especially  things  in  which  they  feel  no  very  deep 
interest ; — and,  in  such  circumstanctes,  profession 
has  a  wonderful  power.  Your  Letters  are  full  of 
profession.  You  perpetually  tell  us  how  very  li- 
beral and  charitable  you  are; — you  entreat  u?  to 
consider  you  as  actuated  by  no  spirit  o(^  hostility 
to  the  Episcopal  Church. 

♦  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  27,  28. 


J66  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X, 

The  most  dangerous  enemy  is  he  who  conceals 
himself  under  the  garb  of  a  friend.  No  temper 
is  so  truly  unamiable  as  that  which  fills  the  mouth 
with  professions  of  kindness,  while  the  spirit  of 
animosity  possesses  the  heart. 

Such,  then,  as  have  examined  your  Letters 
carefully,  pronounce  them  to  be  remarkable  for 
positiveness  and  bitterness.  Persons  who  do  not 
feel  a  sufficient  interest  to  search  attentively,  are 
caught  by  mere  profession.  Believe  me,  Sir,  this 
is  the  true  pxplanation  of  the  compliments  which 
may  have  been  paid  to  your  forbearance. 

It  is  very  painful  to  me  to  be  under  the  neces- 
sity of  addressing  you  in  this  style  ;  but  when  you 
tell  the  world  of  the  great  mildness  and  inoffen- 
siveness  of  your  Letters,  and  of  the  outrageous 
attack  which  they,  nevertheless,  brought  upon  you, 
it  is  proper  and  necessary  that  the  matter  should 
be  placed  in  its  true  point  of  light.  In  giving  the 
explanation  of  the  praises,  which,  you  say,  have 
been  bestowed  upon  your  liberahty,  I  am  only 
defending  Dr.  Bowden  and  myself,  from  a  cen- 
sure that  must  derive  all  its  force  from  the  spirit 
of  kin'lness  by  which  your  Letters  on  the  Chris- 
tian Ministry  are  supposed  to  be  distinguished. 

"  These  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  their  stric- 
tures, have  allowed  themselves,  frequently,  to 
en  J  ploy  language  of  which  I  cannot  forbear  to  ex- 
hibit a  specimen."* 

You  go  on  to  introduce  quotations,  consisting 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  32. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  367 

of  a  few  words  in  a  place;  so  that  the  reader  is 
unable  to  form  a  judgment  of  the  subject  to  which 
they  are  applied,  or  of  the  qualificMtions  with 
which  they  are  accompanied.  You  omit,  too,  all 
notice  of  those  passages  in  which  we  give  you 
credit  for  good  intention,  or  in  which  we  speak 
with  respect  of  the  religious  denomination  to 
which  you  belong.  This  is  not  dealing  fairly  with 
your  people. 

Fortunately  you  have  fixed  upon  a  passage  of 
my  Letters,  which  you  have  thought  proper  to 
present  at  full  length ;  and  you  introduce  it  in  a 
way  which  shows  that  you  consider  it  as  involv- 
ing an  excessive  departure  from  all  the  rules  of 
propriety.  "  On  one  occasion  he  permits  himself 
to  address  me  thus:*  '  You  could  not  possibly 
have  adopted  a  mode  of  address  more  calculated 
to  sour  the  minds  of  your  readers,  or  better  fitted 
to  indulge  the  bitterness  of  your  own  heart.  It 
is  indirect  and  insidious;  covering,  under  the 
mask  of  moderation  and  kindness,  all  the  loftiness 
of  pride,  and  all  the  rankling  of  passion."t 

This  passage  you  have  selected  as  the  most  ex- 
ceptionable and  offensive  part  of  my  Letters. 

Let  us  see  to  what  it  referred. 

"  Such  persons  (the  advocates  of  Episcopacy) 
are  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light  with  those  who 
conscientiously  believe  (and  no  doubt  there  are 
many  such)  that  transubstantiation  is  a  doctrine 
of  Scripture;    that  the   Pope   is  infallible;   that 

»  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  33.       f  How's  Letters  to  Miller,  p.  1 6. 


368  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

ima2:es  are  a  great  help  to  devotion ;  and  that 
there  is  no  salvation  out  otMhe  pale  of  the  Church 
of  Rome."* 

"  After  reading  the  foregoing  sheets,  I  trust  you 
will  be  prepared  to  receive  such  charges  and  such 
denunciations,  with  the  same  calm,  dispassionate, 
conscious  superiority,  that  you  feel  when  a  parti- 
zan  of  the  papacy  denoimces  you  for  rejecting  the 
suj)remacy  of  the  Pope,  and  questions  the  possi- 
bility of  your  salvation   out   of   the   Church   of 

Rome."t 

"  Let  me  warn  you  against  being  partakers  with 
our  opponents,  in  the  positiveness  and  bigotry 
which  some  of  them  manifest."  "  Remember 
that  you  are  not  free  from  a  criminal  bigotry,  if 
you  have  not  learned  to  hrar  with  bigots.  It  is  a 
diificult  lesson  ;  but  we  are  required  to  learn  it."t 

I  freely  submit  it  to  the  reader  whether  I  ex- 
ceeded the  Umits  of  a  just  retaliation.  The  passage, 
particularly,  in  which  you  entreat  your  people  to 
learn  the  hard  lesson  of  bearing  with  bigots,  is 
truly  characterized  when  it  is  styled  insidious. 
**  We  are  constrained,  however  reluctantly,"  says 
Dr.  Hobart,  "  to  commend  Mr.  H.  for  that  manly 
dignity  and  feeling  with  which  he  tears  the  mask 
of  plausibility  from  Dr.  M.'s  perlormance,  and 
proves  that  it  indulges  frequently  in  an  arrogance 
and  bitterness,  more  injurious  and  reprehensible 
from  the  insidious  professions  of  moderation  with 
which  they  are  covered."^ 

*  Letters,  p.  20,  21.  f  Ibid.  p.  350.  t  Ibid-  p.  351. 

$  Churchman's  Magazine,  vol.  v.  p.  134. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  369 

"  Two  of  the  gentlemen  whose  attacks  I  am 
called  upon  lo  repel,  accuse  me  of  misrepresent- 
ing the  high-toned  Episcopal  doctrine  which  they 
avow,  and  endeavour  to  maintain.  They  impute 
to  me  a  desire  to  excite  prejudices  against  them, 
by  insinuating  that  they  exchide  all  but  Episco- 
palians from  salvation.  Mr.  How,  in  particular, 
brings  forward,  and  ur2:es  this  accusation  with 
great  zeal.  I  utterly  deny  the  charge.  I  never 
intended  to  convey  such  an  insinuation;  and  am 
persuaded  that  my  Letters  do  not  contain  a  single 
sentence  which  can  be  fairly  construed  as  express- 
ing it."* 

You  have  my  sincere  thanks  for  being  thus  ex- 
plicit ;  still,  you  will  permit  me  to  observe,  the 
direct  tendency  of  your  Letters  was  to  lead  your 
people  to  believe  that  the  advocates  of  Episco- 
pacy confine  all  hope  of  salvation  within  the  limit? 
of  their  own  religious  profession.  But,  as  gene- 
ral assertion  is  of  little  weight,  I  will  submit  one 
or  two  passages  to  the  inspection  of  the  reader. 

"  Such  persons  (the  advocates  of  Episcopacy) 
are  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light  with  those  who 
conscientiously  believe  that  transubstantiation  is 
a  doctrine  of  Scripture;  that  the  Pope  is  infalhlle; 
and  that  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the  pate  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.^^-f  "  After  reading  the  foregoing 
sheets  I  trust  you  will  be  prepared  to  receive  such 
charges  and  such  denunciations,  with  the  same 
calm,    dispassionate,    conscious   superiority,   that 

*  Coatinuution'of  Letters,  p.  36.  j  LeUcrs,  p.  2C,  21, 

17 


S70  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

you  feel  when  a  partizan  of  the  papacy  denounces 
you  for  rejecting  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and 
questions  the  possibility  of  your  salvation  out  of  the 
Church  of  Roine.^^* 

Now  let  it  be  recollected  that  the  idea  had 
been  diligently  circulated,  and  prevailed  not  a 
little,  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  that  the 
advocates  of  prelacy  shut  out  all  non- Episcopali- 
ans from  the  very  possibility  of  mercy.  Knowing 
this,  and  you  could  not  but  know  it,  you  have 
tvritten  in  a  way  exactly  calculated  to  counte- 
nance and  confirm  the  injurious  impression.  A 
large  proportion  of  your  readers,  I  am  quite  per- 
suaded, will  be  led  to  conclude  that  we  consign 
all  but  the  members  of  our  own  society  to  in- 
evitable and  indiscriminate  perdition;  for,  inde- 
pendently of  the  particular  passages,  which  I  have 
just  cited,  the  general  spirit  of  your  work,  in  re- 
ference to  the  point  in  question,  is  of  this  unge- 
nerous tendency. 

Besides,  there  are  passages,  in  your  last  publi- 
cation, of  the  same  exceptionable  character. 

"  But  these  gentlemen  insist,  that  however  high 
and  exceptionable  their  claims  may  be  considered, 
we,  on  our  part,  advance  claims  as  high  and  as 
offensive  as  theirs;  and,  therefore,  on  our  ow» 
principles,  have  no  right  to  complain."! 

You  go  on  to  repel  this  by  extracts  from  your 
standards ;  after  finishing  which,  you  say — "  Im 
these  chapters,  every  line  is  marked  with  wisdom, 

•  Letcurs,  p.  356.  j  eontinuation  of  Letter*,  f,  37. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS. 


371 


moderation,  and  charity."  "  They  are  so  far  from 
maintaining  that  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  tJu 
pale  of  our  Churchy  that  they  could  scarcely  have 
found  words  more  strongly  to  express  an  opposite 
opinion,  without  running  into  unlimited  latitudi- 


narianism."* 


Again — "  Does  this  look  like  pronouncing  out 
precise  form  of  Church  order  indispensal>le  to  a 
regular  ministry,  to  valid  ordinances,  or  to  final 
salvation.^^f 

Now,  what  is  the  amount  of  all  this  ?  You  are 
proving  that  the  Presbyterial  claims  are  much  less 
offensive  than  the  Episcopal.  And  how  do  you 
proceed  ?  Why,  you  tell  us  that  the  Presbyterial 
standards  do  not  assert  the  impossibility  of  salta- 
tion out  of  the  pale  of  the  Presbyterial  Church, 
What  is  this  but  to  say  that  the  advocates  of  pre- 
lacy DO  ASSERT  the  impossibility  of  salvation  out  of 
the  pale  of  the  Episcopal  Church? 

Presbyterians  are  less  offensive  in  their  claims 
than  Episcopalians.  Why?  Presbyterians  admit 
the  possibility  of  salvation  out  of  the  Presbyterial 
Church,  while  Episcopalians  do  not  admit  the 
possibility  of  salvation  out  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

Such  is  the  simple  interpretation  of  your  words. 

From  this  dilemma  you  cannot  be  extricated 
but  at  the  expense  of  your  discernment,  or  your 
candour.  Either  you  really  did  not  perceive  the 
obvious  import  of  what  you  were  saying,  or  it 
was  your  object   dexterously  to  insinuate  what 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  43.  t  Ibid.  p.  4f 


372  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

you  had  not  courage  openly  to  declare.  You 
must  pardon  me  for  using  this  plain  language.  It 
is  so  unmanly,  so  unjust,  so  cruel,  to  impute  to 
us,  expressly  or  impliedly,  the  horrid  opinion  hi 
question,  that  I  should  be  justified  in  directing  to 
you  some  of  the  severest  epithets  which  language 
can  supply.  Let  the  idea  prevail,  that  we  cut  off 
all  but  the  members  of  our  own  Church  from  all 
hope  of  mercy,  and  we  shall  be  regarded,  and 
justly  regarded,  as  monsters  of  impiety  and  arro- 
gance, unfit  to  be  tolerated  among  men.  If  a 
disposition  exist  not  in  the  public  mind  to  hunt  us 
from  society,  we  owe  it  to  the  enlightened  spirit 
of  the  times;  not  to  the  forbearance  of  you  and 
your  fellow  labourers  in  the  Calvinistic  cause. 
And,  when  it  is  considered  that  we  extend  our 
charitable  ideas  to  a  point  which  almost  fills  you 
with  horror;  that  we  place  all  infants  in  the  arms 
of  mercy,  while  you  give  many  of  them  to  per- 
dition; that  we  admit  the  possibility  of  salvation 
to  the  conscientious  heathen,  while  you  expressly 
take  the  ground  that  "  none  can  he  saved  who  have 
never  heard  of  Christy  however  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature  f'^*  there  is 
something  so  shameful  in  the  attempt  to  hold  us  up 
to  the  public  view,  as  gloomy  and  unrelenting  bi- 
gots, that,  in  dealing  with  the  authors  of  so  gross 
a  calumny,  we  can  scarcely  be  considered  as 
bound  by  the  laws  of  ordinary  and  honourable 
controversy.  But  I  will  suppress  what  I  presume 
to  call  a  virtuous  indignation,  and  proceed. 

•  Presbyterian  Catechism,  question  60. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  373 

I  asserted,  in  my  former  Series  of  Letters,  that 
the  Presbyterial  claims  are  more  extensive  than 
the  Episcopal,  on  the  subject  of  exlernal  order. 
This  you  strongly  deny ;  and  you  attempt  to  sup- 
port your  denial  by  specific  passages  from  the 
standards  of  your  society. 

"  To  show  that  Mr.  How,  in  writing  thus,  un- 
justly accuses  our  Church,  nothing  more  is  neces- 
sary than  to  transcribe  the  following  chapters  from 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Form  of  Government. 
They  are  given  entire^  that  there  may  be  no  sus- 
picion of  concealment  or  mutilation;  that  the  se- 
veral sections  of  each  chapter  may  explain  one  an- 
other ;  and,  I  will  add,  that  Mr.  How,  if  he  should 
ever  happen  to  look  into  these  pages,  may  have  an 
opportunity  of  reading  them,  which,  after  perusing 
such  remarks  as  are  ciuoted  above,  I  cannot  sup- 
pose he  has  ever  yet  done."* 

Here  is  a  great  display  of  candour ;  but,  I  am 
sorry  to  be  obliged  to  add,  it  is  nothing  more  than 
a  display.  You  introduce  passages  of  your  stand- 
ards that  are  entirely  irrelevant,  and  omit  others 
which  are  absolutely  necessary  to  make  out  the 
series  of  proof.  For  example,  you  present  us 
with  the  passage  which  confines  all  covenanted 
title  to  salvation  within  the  limits  of  the  visible 
Church,  and  with  that  which  declares  an  out- 
wardly ordained  ministry  to  be  essential  to  the 
existence  of  this  Church.  But,  surely,  this  is  very 
far  from  exhibiting  a  complete  view  of  the  case^ 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  40. 


574  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X, 

Yoli  should  have  added  the  passages  which  make 
the  Fresbyteriahnode  essential  to  outward  ordination; 
then  we  should  have  had  the  whole  subject  fairly 
before  us. 

You  bring  against  me  the  charge  of  gross  mis- 
representation of  the  doctrine  of  your  religious  ar- 
ticles ;  you  assert  that  the  claims  of  your  society^ 
on  the  subject  of  external  order,  are  much  less 
extensive  than  those  of  the  advocates  of  Episco- 
pacy; you  make  a  great  parade  of  quotation; 
telling  your  reader,  in  plain  terms,  that  you  pre* 
sent  him  with  every  passage  which  bears  upon 
the  point  in  question.  Will  it  be  believed  that,  in 
the  midst  of  all  this,  you  scruple  not  to  mutilate 
the  language  of  your  standards  ?  Those  passages 
which  speak  of  the  visible  Church,  generally  con- 
sidered, you  introduce ;  but  the  moment  you  come 
to  the  sections  which  set  forth  the  Preshyterial 
character  of  this  Church,  you  stop.* 

Conscious  of  having  acted  unfairly,  you  endea- 
vour to  excuse  yourself. 

"  These  gentlemen,  however,  insist,  that  in  the 
chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  (chap.  27) 
which  treats  of  the  Sacraments,  it  is  formally  de- 
clired,  that  ^  neither  of  the  sacraments  may  be 
disftensed  by  any  other  than  a  minister  of  the 
word  lawfully  ordained,'^  But  what  is  this  to  the 
purpose?     Who  is  a  '  Minister  of  the  word  law- 

*  You  omit  the  passage  which  declares  tlie  power  of  ordaining-  to  be 
in  the  Presbylerial  Ass'  mMy,  i»nd  that  which  rests  the  method  of  or- 
dination by  the  laying  on  of  tlic  hands  of  the  Presbytery  on  Apostolrc 
Cxampk. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  375 

fiilly  ordained  ?'  If  any  preceding  or  subsequent 
passage  in  our  public  starularcls  had  asserted,  or 
even  intimated,  that  no  minister  is  lawfully  or- 
dained, but  one  who  has  been  set  apart  exactly  in 
our  mode,  there  w^ould  be  some  pretext  for  this 
eavil."* 

Do  not  your  religious  standards  say  that  the 
Presbyterial  Assembly  is  a  tribunal  of  divine  in- 
stitution? Do  they  not  say  that  the  power  of  or- 
daining is  in  this  assembly  ?  Do  they  not  ex- 
pressly rest  the  particular  method  of  ordination 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery, 
upon  apostolic  example  ?  Have  you  forgotten  your 
own  positive  language  ?  "It  is  only  so  far  as  any 
succession  flows  through  the  line  of  Presbyters, 
that  is  either  regular  or  valid.  It  is  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  that  constitutes  a 
scriptural  ordination."  Have  you  forgotten  the 
Ecclesiastical  Catechism  of  Dr.  M'Leod?  "A 
person  who  is  not  ordained  to  office  by  a  Presby- 
tery, has  no  right  to  be  received  as  a  minister  of 
Christ.  It  is  rebellion  against  the  Head  of  the 
Church  to  support  him  in  his  pretensions."t  What 
is  the  language  of  the  Westminster  Divines,  and 
©f  the  General  Assembly  of  Scotland?  "  The 
power  of  ordination  is  in  a  PreshyteryP  "  The  act 
of  ordination  is  the  act  of  a  Presbytery,'^'* 

"  Exactly  in  our  mode.^^  And  do  you  hope  to 
escape  thus  ?  Will  you  venture  to  assert  that  the 
power  of  ordination  is  possessed  by  any  other  tri- 

*  Centinimtien  •f.L-etteys,  p.  44  i  Rccle.  Cat,  p.  ?9,  30. 


n 


76  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 


biinal  than  a  Presbyterial  Assembly  ?  Will  you 
admit  ordination  to  be  valid  which  is  not  per- 
formed by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery? Will  you  receive  any  man  as  a  lawful 
minister  of  Christ  who  has  not  been  ordained, 
substantially,  in  the  Presbyterial  mode?  No,  no  : 
"  Exactly  in  our  mode."  Pray,  what  do  you  mean 
by  the  term  "  exactly  f'^ 

It  must  be  a  weak  cause  which  requires  to  be 
thus  supported. 

Again — You  tell  us,  by  way  of  apology,  it  would 
seem,  for  the  strictness  of  your  principles,  that 
your  standards  represent  the  visible  Church  as 
including  all  who  may  be  professors  of  the  true 
religion.*  This  is,  to  be  sure,  a  definition  iu 
which  nothing  is  defined.  Until  it  be  ascer- 
tained what  the  true  religion  is,  such  a  mode  of 
describing  is,  literally,  putting  the  reader  off  with 
empty  sound.  But  we  are  to  have  recourse,  doubt- 
less, to  the  standards  of  your  society,  to  know  w  hat 
the  true  religion  includes.  Very  well !  Those  stand- 
ards tell  us  that  a  ministry  outwardly  ordained, 
is  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  visible 
Church,  and  that  the  power  of  ordination  can  be 
validly  exercised  only  by  a  Presbyterial  Assembly. 
So  that,  go  where  we  will,  we  are  brought  back 
to  Presbyterial  ordination  as  the  criterion  of  all 
lawful  ecclesiastical  order. 

Besides,  your  standards  make  the  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  Calvinism  a  most  important  part  of  the 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  43. 


f.ET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  377 

true  religion : — of  course,  without  tlic  profession 
of  these  doctrines,  there  can  be  no  Church.  How 
will  you  get  rid  of  this  conclusion?  If  the  visible 
Church  consists  of  those  who  profess  the  true 
religion,  and  if  the  principles  of  Calvinism  be  a 
part  of  the  true  religion,  it  must  follow  that  none 
can  be  really  members  of  the  Church  but  such 
as  embrace  those  principles.  And  as  your  stand- 
ards tell  us,  une(|ui vocally,  that  there  can  be  no 
covenanted  title  to  salvation  without  the  pale  of 
the  visible  Church,  it  Ibllows  that  Calvinists  alone 
are  in  covenant  with  God.  Now,  you  expressly 
declare  that  there  is  no  mercy  but  such  as  is 
secured  by  covenant  transaction.*  So  that  we 
are  fairly  brought  to  the  following  train  of  con- 
clusions— No  true  religion  without  Calvinismf— 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  57,  58. 

f  Apart  from  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  "  the  whole  plan 
of  salvation,"  according  to  you,  "  is  a  gloomy  system  of  possibilities 
and  peradventures ;  a  system,  on  the  whole,  nearly,  if  not  quite,  aa 
likely  to  land  the  believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned,  as  in  the  para- 
dise of  God."*  Surely,  then,  the  doctrines  in  question  must  be  of  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity ;  there  can  be  no  true  religion  without 
them.  In  saying,  therefore,  that  the  Church  consists  of  all  those  who 
profess  the  true  religion,  you  only  say  that  it  consists  of  the  Calvinists. 
The  definition  which  your  standards  give  of  the  visible  Church  is  thus 
so  yagucj  that  we  must  look  through  the  whole  of  your  religious  for- 
mularies before  we  can  understand  it.  In  examining  these  formula- 
ries, we  find  nothing  more  prominent  than  the  doctrines  of  partial  re- 
demption, of  absolute  unconditional  election  and  reprobation,  irresisti- 
ble grace,  and  final  perseverance.  In  the  writings  of  distinguished 
Presbyterian  divines,  the  doctrines  are  equally  conspicuous;  with  you 
they  are  so  important,  that  Christianity,  without  them,  would  quite  as 
well  deserve  to  be  called  a  scheme  for  our  destruction,  ajs.  for  our  «d- 
vation. 

i  Conticiiation  of  Letters,  p.  SCy'.l 

48 


373  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X- 

No  Church  without  the  true  religion — No  cove- 
nanted title  but  in  the  Church — No  salvation  with- 
out a  covenanted  title.  Thus  is  it  Hterally  made 
out  that  none  but  Calvinists  can  be  members  of 
the  Church,  and  that  none  but  members  of  the 
Church  can  be  saved. 

Put  you  and  your  religious  articles  together,  and 
we  have  a  scene  of  never  ending  inconsistency. 

"  And  lest  the  phrase,  the  true  religion^  might 
be  construed  to  mean  an  exact  conformity  with 
their  own  standards,  they  declare  that  they  consi- 
der as  included  in  the  visible  Catholic  Church, 
many  Churches  less  pure  than  their  oim.^^^ 

There  is  no  such  declaration  as  this  in  the  ex- 
tracts which  you  have  given  us  from  the  standards 
of  your  society,  nor  in  any  other  part  of  those 
standards.  It  is  merely  said  that  the  Church  may 
exist  in  different  degrees  of  purity;  and  I  humbly 
apprehend  that  a  religious  society  may  be  Pres- 
byterial  in  its  structure,  without  being  absolutely 
perfect  either  in  its  creed  or  its  practice. 

But  you  embrace,  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  those 
Christians  who  differ  from  you  upon  the  subject 
of  ecclesiastical  order.f  So  do  we.  We  embrace 
all  men  in  the  spirit  of  charity — we  make  allow- 
ance for  what  we  conceive  to  be  error — we  extend 
the  divine  favour  to  all  conscientious  inquirers 
after  truth. 

"  Our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Articles  of  Go- 
vernment,  were   drawn  up   by  the  Westminster 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  44.  |  Ibid.  p.  44. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  379 

Divines.  And  it  is  remarkable,  Unit  all  of  llicse 
divines,  exrcpling  about  seven  or  eic^ht,  had  re- 
ceived Episcopal  ordination,  and  no  other.  Is  it 
credible  that  these  men,  assembled  as  ministers, 
judicially  deliberating  and  acting  as  ministers, 
could  have  intended  to  pronounce  their  own  ordi- 
nation null  and  void?"* 

It  is  very  much  to  be  lamented,  Sir,  that  you 
tvill  continue  to  be  so  extremely  disingenuous. 
Who  has  ever  pretended  that  you  deny  the  validity 
of  Episcopal  ordination?  You,  surely,  are  too 
wise  to  unchurch  your  own  religious  society. 
Episcopal  ordination  is  the  basis  upon  which  that 
society  must  ultimately  rest.  But,  Sir,  you  admit 
the  validity  of  this  mode  of  ordination,  as  I  have 
already  more  than  once  observed,  only  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  i7ifact  Preshyterial ;  and  even  this 
poor  concession  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  is  ex- 
torted from  you  by  the  hard  principle  of  necessity. 

As  Episcopal  clergymen,  we  are  innovators,  in- 
truders, rebels.  But  you  are  pleased  to  view^  us 
with  a  Presbyterial  eye ;  and  instantly,  as  by  the 
power  of  magic,  we  become  real  ministers  of 
Christ.  There  must  be  prodigious  virtue  in  the 
spirit  of  Presbyterianism  to  purge  away  the  dross 
of  so  much  corruption,  and  to  convert  rebels  and 
impostors  into  the  ambassadors  of  Heaven. 

You  charge  me  w  ith  grossly  misrepresenting  the 
opinions  of  Drs.  Mason  and  M'Leod ;  in  doing 
which  you  use  the  following  very  severe  language 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  45. 


380  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

— "  Althoiig;h  both  Dr.  Mason  and  Mr.  M'Leod 
mav  hold  some  opinions  concerniniz:  the  Christian 
Church  in  which  I  do  not  entirely  concur  with 
them ;  yet  there  cannot  be  greater  injustice  than 
to  speak  of  them  and  their  writings  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  Mr.  How  has  permitted  himself 
to  do.  To  what  this  misstatement  of  their  opi- 
nions is  to  be  ascribed,  it  becomes  not  me  to  say. 
I  dare  not  impeach  the  integrity  of  Mr.  How. 
For  acquitting  his  honesty  at  the  expense  of  his 
understanding,  he  woukl  not  thank  me:  And  to 
suppose  that  he  has  allowed  himself  to  speak  with 
so  much  positiveness  of  their  tenets,  without  any 
acquaintance  with  them,  would  be  as  offensive  as 
either."* 

Thus  do  you  permit  yourself  to  speak,  without 
specifying  a  single  case,  or  advancing  a  single 
argument  in  proof  of  your  charge. 

I  have  not  misrepresented  Di*s.  Mason  and 
M'Leod  in  the  slightest  degree.  The  opinions 
which  1  have  ascribed  to  them,  they  scruple  not, 
in  the  most  public  manner,  to  avow  and  defend. 
They  maintain  that  the  ministry  is  essential  to  the 
very  existence  of  the  visible  Church ;  that  out- 
ward ordination  is  essential  to  the  ministry;  and 
that  valid  ordination  can  be  performed  only  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  That 
is,  they  maintain  that  Presbyterial  ordination  is 
the  basis  upon  which  the  whole  structure  of  the 
Church  visible  must  rest.   Drs.  Mason  and  MTiCodj 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  47 


LET.  X.  mi9cellam:oi;s.  -381 

I  am  persuaded,  will  never  charge  me  with  hav- 
ing inisrepresentod  their  o[)inions  upon  this  subject. 
Agreeing  with  yon  in  the  most  rigid  |)rinci[)les  of 
Prcsbyterianism,  they  liave  the  merit  of  adhering 
to  them  with  much  greater  consistency. 

"  But  are   there   not  some   Presl)yterian3  who 
hokUiliat_their  form  of  Church  government  was 
the  apostolic  and  primitive  form?     Undouljtedly, 
many.     And  are  there  not  some  also,  who  go  fur- 
ther, and  insist  that  this  form  is  binding  on  the 
Church,   under  all   circumstances  and   states  of 
society,  and,  of  course,  ought  to  be  adopted  in 
all  ages  ?    There  are  certainly  some  who  go  even 
this  length.     Well!    my  opponents  will  reply,  is 
not  this  holding  to  the  divine  right  of  Presbyterian 
government  ?    It  is.    And  is  it  not,  of  consequence, 
going  the  whole  length  with  us,  and  denying  that 
there  can  be  any  true  Church,  or  valid  ordinances 
without  it  ?     Certainly  not.     The  conclusion  has 
no  more  connexion  with  the  premises,  than  with 
the  most  remote  object  in  creation."* 

"  It  is  to  no  purpose  to  say,  '  that  if  these  be 
the  opinions  of  jure  divino  Presbyterians,  they  are 
inconsistent  with  themselves;  for  that  a  belief  that 
Prcsbyterianism  was  the  apostolic  form  of  Church 
government,  necessarily  carries  with  it,  on  every 
principle  of  sober  reasoning,  a  belief  that  there 
can  be  no  Church,  no  ministry  without  it.'  This 
conclusion  is  as  illegitimate  in  reasoning,  as  it  is 
false  in  fact."t 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  47,  48.  t  I^^^-  P*  ^^>  ^^- 


3S':i  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  Xs. 

"  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  charge  brought 
against  Presbyterians,  thnt  they  unchurch  all  who 
reject  the  Tresbyterian  government,  is  perfectly 
unfounded,"  and  that  the  authors  of  the  charge  are 
guilty  of  "  calumniathig  our  venerable  Church."* 

The  whole  of  this  is  a  mere  evasion,  founded 
on  the  vague  meaning  of  a  phrase.  Who  has  ever 
said  that  you  represent  the  entire  frame  of  Pres- 
hyterial  government  as  essential  to  the  existence 
of  the  visible  Church  ?  No,  Sir,  the  point  of 
the  argument  is  not  here.  Let  us,  for  a  mo- 
ment, substitute  "  ministry"  for  "  government," 
and  then  see  whether  you  can  escape  so  readily. 
Tell  me,  therefore,  do  you  believe,  with  your  re- 
ligious standards,  that  an  outwardly  ordained  mi- 
nistry is  an  essential  ingredient  of  the  Christian 
Church  ?  Do  you  believe,  with  the  same  stand- 
ards, that  the  power  of  ordination  has  been  dele- 
gated by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  to  a  Pres- 
bjterial  Assembly,  and  that  it  can  be  lawfully  ex- 
ercised by  such  an  assembly  alone?  Afraid  to 
meet  the  doctrine  directly  and  manfully,  you  re- 
tire under  cover  of  the  vague  term  government. 
This  is  your  constant  practice. 

Presbyterianism  is  the  Apostolic  form  of  Church 
government — therefore,  without  Presbyterianism, 
there  can  be  no  ministry,  and  no  Church. 

This  is  very  lame  indeed.  We  are  not  quite 
such  Tyros  in  the  art  of  reasoning.  In  holding  us 
out  to  the  public  as  arguing  in  this  way,  you  do 

*  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  54,  55 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  '38i> 

injustice,  I  assure  you,  to  our  lo^^ical  powers. 
But  if  we  only  say,  the  ministry  bcini^  necessary 
to  the  Cliurch,  and  ordination  by  a  Presbyterial 
Assembly  being  necessary  to  the  ministry,  it 
must  follow,  that,  without  a  Presbyteiiid  Assem- 
bly, there  can  be  no  Church — our  reputation 
lor  dialectic  skill,  perhaps,  will  not  be  totally 
ruined. 

If  you  had  been  contented  with  extricating 
yourself  from  a  ditlicult  situation  by  the  inge- 
nious use  of  ambiguous  phrases,  it  might  have 
been  set  down  to  the  account  of  excusable  frailty; 
but  when  you  venture  to  represent  your  opponents 
as  making  themselves  ridiculous  by  their  igno- 
rance, and  even  to  brand  them  as  calumniators, 
in  reference  to  the  point  under  consideration,  you 
are  guilty  of  an  outrage  which  must  excite  the 
indignation  of  all  honest  men. 

"  The  most  rigid  Presbyterians  have,  at  differ- 
ent times,  both  as  individuals  and  judicatories ; 
both  by  their  writings  and  their  decisions,  expli* 
citly  acknowledged  different  denominations  of 
Christians  to  be  true  Churches  of  Christ.  They 
have  acknowledged  our  Congregational  brethren 
in  New-England;  the  regular  Independents  in  va- 
rious p.irts  of  Great' Britain;  the  Episcopalians 
in  England  and  America;  the  Lutherans  in  Ger- 
many and  the  United  States;  and  the  Methodist 
and  Baptist  denominations,  as  all  Churches  of 
Christ.  They  consider  all  these,  indeed,  as  more 
or  less  corrupt;  and  have,  ac(  ordingly,  at  differ- 
ent times,  and  without  reserve,  written,  preached. 


o84  MIfcCELLAMiOUa.  LEX.  X. 

and  printed  their  testimony  against  those  corrup- 
tions.''* 

Ordhialion,  as  practised  by  all  these  societies, 
you  consider  as  substantially  Prcsbyterial,  and 
thcretbrc  vaUd.  But  what  becomes  of  the  Qua- 
kers? You  do  not  venture  to  [)ut  ihem  down  as  a 
true  Church.  The  Greek  Christians,  too,  more 
numerous  tlian  all  the  societies  of  Protestants 
united,  you  excommunicate  merely  because  ordi- 
nation is  performed  among  them  by  a  single  clcr- 
gyman,  instead  of  being  perforrhed  by  a  plurality 
of  clergymen.  So  rigid  is  your  adherence  to  the 
principle  of  the  exclusive  validity  of  ordination  by 
the  hands  of  a  Presbyterial  Assembly.  Indeed,  Sir, 
it  would  be  wise  in  you  to  keep  this  subject  out 
of  sight.  Turn  and  disguise  it  as  you  please,  it  will 
still  be  apparent  that  your  principles  relative  to 
external  order,  are  more  strict  than  those  of  your 
opponents,  and  that  they  exclude  from  the  visible 
Church  a  much  greater  number  of  professing 
Christians. 

''  This  simple  statement  also  refutes  another 
assertion,  which  Mr.  How  permits  himself,  with- 
out the  smallest  foundation,  to  make  and  repeat. 
The  assertion  to  which  I  allude,  is  conveyed  in 
the  following  terms.  ^'  All  of  you  declare  bap- 
tism and  the  supper  to  be  general  conditions  ofsal^ 
vatio7i;  representing  them  as  seals  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  without  which,  it  is  impossible  to 
hav^  any  ordinary  or  regular  claim  to  the  bless- 

^  Contlnaatlon  of  Letters,  p.  51. 


LET.  X,  MISCELLANEOUS.  385 

ing^  of  that  covenant. '^ — "  Mr.  How  assorts  that 
all  Presbyterians  behevc  and  speak  thus.  But  can 
he  find  one  that  does  ?  I  know  of  none ;  and  am 
confident  there  is  none.  Our  Confession  of  Faith 
says  no  such  thing.  On  tlie  contrary,  it  expressly 
declares,  that  persons  to  whom  these  ordinances 
are  never  administered,  may  he  saved;  and  that 
those  who  do  receive  them  may  perish^* 

Was  there  ever  such  a  refutation  ? 

Does  not  God  require  us  to  be  baptized  ?  And 
is  not  obedience  to  his  laws  a  condition  of  salva- 
tion ?  To  be  sure,  a  merciful  Being  will  make 
allowance  for  the  errors  of  his  frail  creatures. 
Wilful  departure  from  his  institutions  must  infal- 
libly exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven;  but 
not  so,  we  humbly  trust,  with  such  as  proceeds 
from  ignorance  or  prejudice: — therefore,  we  say, 
baptism  is  a  general  condition  of  salvation.  To 
this  you  answer,  that  unbaptized  persons  may  he 
saved.  Surely,  Sir,  you  understand  the  distinc- 
tion between  a  general  condition,  and  a  condition 
that  can,  under  no  possible  circumstances,  be 
dispensed  with.  The  assertion  that  your  standards 
represent  "  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
general  conditions  of  salvation,"  must  be  consi- 
dered, then,  I  believe,  as  remaining  firm. 

"  But,"  says  Mr.  How,  "  your  Confession  of  Faith 
fepresents  baptism  as  the  only  mode  of  admission 
into  the  visible  Church ;  it  declares  that  out  of 
the  visible  Church,  there  is  no  orJmary  possibility 


♦  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  CQ. 

49 


386  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

a(  salvation ;  and  it  maintains  that  baptism  ought 
not  to  be  administered  by  any  but  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel  lawfully  ordained  Does  it  not  follow 
then,  that  without  baptism,  there  is  '  no  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation?'  "  No,  it  does  not  fol- 
low. His  premises  are  incorrect,  and  his  conclu- 
sion is  equally  so.  With  all  his  confidence  he 
blunders  at  every  step.  Every  one  who  has  read 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  knows  its  doctrine  on  this 
subject  to  be,  that  all  who  profess  the  true  religion, 
are  members  of  the  visible  Church ;  that  the  chil- 
dren of  such  persons,  by  virtue  of  their  hirth^  and 
of  course  anterior  to  baptism,  are  also  members  of 
the  Church;  and  that  baptism  is  only  the  ap- 
pointed seal,  or  solemn  recognition  and  ratification 
of  their  membership.  This  is  perfectly  plain ;  and 
it  cuts  up  by  the  roots  every  pretence  for  the  state- 
ment which  Mr.  How  has  made."* 

Let  me  refer  you  to  the  following  passages  from 
your  Confession  of  Faith : — "  Baptism  is  a  sacra- 
ment of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus 
Christ,  not  only  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the 
party  baptized  into  the  visible  Church,  &:c."t  "  Sa- 
craments are  holy  signs  and  seals,  &c.  immedi- 
ately instituted  by  God,  he.  to  put  a  visible  differ- 
ence between  those  that  belong  unto  the  Church,  and 
the  rest  of  the  loorW^X 

It  is,  then,  the  clear  doctrine  of  your  Confession 
of  Faith,  that  baptism  is  the  only  mode  of  admisr 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  61. 

f  Presbyterian  Confession  of  f  aitli,  chap,  xxviii.  sect.  1- 

t  Ibid.  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  i. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  387 

sion  into  the  visible  Churcli ;  otherwise,  how  can 
it  be  said,  that  the  sacraments  distinguish  the 
world  and  the  Church  from  each  other  ? 

Baptism  admits  us  into  the  Church,  and  distin- 
guishes us  from  the  world ;  and  yet  we  may  be 
members  of  the  Church,  and  so  distinguished 
from  the  world  without  baptism. 

Is  not  this  imputing  contradiction  and  absurdity 
to  your  religious  formularies  ? 

But  what  shall  we  say  to  the  passage  to  which 
you  allude — "  The  visible  Church  consists  of  all 
those,  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true 
religion,  together  with  their  children."* 

Unless  w^e  consider  this  passage  as  simply  set- 
ting forth  the  right  of  the  children  of  Christian 
parents  to  baptism,  it  will  be  impossible  to  recon- 
cile it  with  the  other  parts  of  your  Confession  of 
Faith,  or  with  common  sense.  It  is  very  clear 
that  we  cannot  be  members  of  the  Church  until 
we  are  admitted  into  it.  If  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents  are  admitted  into  the  Church,  and 
distinguished  from  the  world  by  their  natural  birth, 
it  can  never  be  said  that  baptism  admits  them 
into  the  Church,  and  distinguishes  them  from  the 
world.  But  your  Confession  of  Faith  expressly 
says  that  children  are  admitted  into  the  Church 
and  distinguished  from  the  world  by  baptism; 
therefore  it  does  not  mean  to  say  that  they  are 
thus  admitted  and  thus  distinguished  by  their  na- 
tural birth.     Either,  then,  the  construction  which 

♦  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Fsith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  2. 


588  MISCELLANEOUS.  LET.  X. 

I  have  given  to  the  passage  under  consideration  ia 
the  true  one,  or  your  Confession  of  Faith  is  incon-^ 
sistent  with  itself. 

*'  Baptism  is  only  the  appointed  seal^  or  solemn 
recognition  and  ratification  of  their  membership." 
Does  your  Confession  of  Faith  hold  this  language  .^^ 
Far  from  it.  Baptism  is  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ, 
says  that  Confession,  as  the  mode  of  admission 
into  the  Church,  not  as  the  mode  of  recognizing  a 
previous  admission. 

It  is  not  Mr.  How  that  "  blunders,"  then,  but 
Dr.  Miller,  that  makes  his  own  religious  standards 
both  contradictory  and  absurd. 

"  With  respect  to  Mr.  How's  direct  and  repeated 
assertion,  that  Calvinistic  Presbyterians  make  a 
belief  in  the  doctrine  of  '  election,'  and  the  other 
^  rigid  peculiarities  of  Calvinism^^  essential  to  our 
being  in  covenant  with  God,  and  that  they  repre- 
sent all  who  do  not  receive  these  '  peculiarities' 
as  given  up  to  uncovenanted  mercy,  it  is  difficult  to 
answer  it  as  it  deserves,  without  speaking  of  its 
author  in  a  manner  in  which  I  cannot  permit  iwy^ 
gelf  to  speak  of  a  Christian  minister."* 

This  is  very  harsh  language.  To  give  the  reader 
an  opportunity  of  judging  how  far  1  have  merited 
it  from  you,  1  will  present  at  full  length  the  prin- 
cipal pass.ige  of  my  Letters  on  which  it  is  founded. 
^'  What  if  1  should  show  that  we  do  not  carry 
Episcop  icy  further  than  you  carry  the  doctrine  of 
particular,  unconditional  election  and  reprobation? 

•  Continuation  of  Letters,  p.  Gl,  6?., 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  389 

"  We  say,  with  you,  that  the  visible  Church  is 
the  '  househoUl  of  Go  I,  to  which  his  gracious  pro- 
mises and  his  life-giving  spirit  are  vouchsafed;'* 
and  that  out  of  this  visible  Church,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  your  own  Confession  of  Faith,  there  is 
no  ordinary,  in  other  words,  no  covenanted  possi- 
bility of  salvation.     Persons  who  depart  from  the 
Church,  as  I  have  before  observed,  we  suppose  to 
be  in  a  great  error;  but  we  judge  them  not;  leav- 
ing them  in  the  hands  of  a  merciful  God,  who  will 
deal  both  justly  and  graciously  with  them.     All 
who  sincerely  desire,  and  endeavour  to  know  and 
do  the  will  of  God,  will  be  accepted  by  him;  and 
fundamental  error  will  not  shut  out  from  mercy 
the  truly  devout  and  penitent  soul.     Even  irregu- 
lar and  invalid  ministrations  will  be  blessed,  to  the 
fahhful  and  humble  recipient,  as  channels  of  grace, 
and  means  of  salvation.     Men   must  answer  to 
God  for  their  errors;  and  error  wall  be  a  subject 
of  condemnation  just  so  far  as  it  is  fairly  imputable 
to  the  individual  who  cherishes  it.     This  can  be 
known  only  to  Omniscience.     Pardon  my  repeti- 
tion :    I  think  it  necessary  frequently  to  state  the 
principle  to  you,  as  in  your  animadversions  upon 
the  doctrines  and  reasoning  of  your  opponents, 
you  appear  to  have  entirely  overlooked  it.    Nor  do 
we  run  into  the  absurdity  of  maintaining  the  inno- 
cence of  error;  or,  that  provided  a  man  be  sincere, 
it  is  immaterial  what   profession   he   is  of.     Far 
from  it.     They  who  reject  revealed  truth^  reject 

•  Letters,  p.  342. 


o9Q  MISCELLA^EOU3.  LKT.  X. 

it  at  their  peril;  losing  all  covenanted  title  to  sal- 
vation; and  the  hope  whicli  we  cherish  is  founded 
on  the  nature,  and  the  language  of  God,  who  has 
given  us  abundant  reason  to  believe  that  he  will 
make  great  allowance  for  human  frailty;  pardon- 
ing the  errors  of  the  head,  where  the  heart  is 
truly  sincere ;  knowing  whereof  we  are  made, 
and  remembering  that  we  are  dust.  There  is 
no  reason  why  the  same  general  principle  should 
not  be  applied  to  incorrect  opinions,  as  well  as 
to  improper  actions. 

"  Error  is,  indeed,  almost  always,  in  this  im- 
perfect state,  more  or  less  mixed  with  sin ;  being 
the  result  of  neglect,  which  will  not  use  the  means 
of  information;  of  pride,  which  will  not  submit 
to  the  mortification  of  its  claims;  of  bad  passions, 
which  have  been  indulged  until  they  have  cor- 
rupted the  whole  habit  of  the  soul.  At  the  same 
time,  not  a  little,  we  humbly  trust,  will  be  to  be 
traced  to  a  more  venial  origin.  God  only  knows 
when  error  proceeds  from  a  criminal,  when  from 
a  pardonable  source;  and  he  only  can  tell  what 
degree  of  allowance  may  be  made  for  it  consist- 
ently with  the  claims  of  justice.  That  this  allow- 
ance will  be  far  from  inconsiderable,  we  hope  and 
believe. 

"  Now,  Sir,  let  us  see  how  far  persons  of  your 
way  of  thinking  carry  the  rigid  doctrine  of  parti- 
cular unconditional  election  and  reprobation ;  that 
doctrine  upon  which  you  place  so  high  value, 
never  ceasing  to  enforce  it  from  the  pulpit  and 
from  the  press. 


LET.  X.  MISCELLANEOUS.  391 

^'  Faith  you  represent  as  necessary  to  salvation; 
and  you  hold  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  to  be  a  most  important  ar- 
ticle of  faith ;  considerins;  the  rejection  of  it  as 
flowing  from  pride,  and  as  indicatinc;  an  unre- 
generate  state  of  the  heart.  In  refusing  to  believe 
this  doctrine,  then,  we  refuse  to  believe  divine 
truth,  and  so  ^^r  violate  the  conditions  of  the  covenant. 
And  upon  what  ground  do  you  place  us?  You 
say  we  are  in  the  hands  of  a  merciful  God,  who 
knows  whereof  we  are  made,  and  remembers  that 
we  are  but  dust.  This  is  the  express  language 
used  by  Calvinistic  writers.  They  place  those 
who  reject  the  doctrine  of  particular  unconditional 
election  and  reprobation  on  the  ground  of  the 
general  mercy  of  God;  cherishing  the  hope  that 
he  will,  in  condescension  to  human  frailty,  pardon 
their  error.  A  stranger  to  the  subject  would  really 
suppose,  upon  reading  your  book,  that  your  op- 
ponents deny  the  very  possibility  of  salvation  out  of 
their  own  Church.  After  all,  they  lay  no  more 
stress,  in  reference  to  future  happiness,  on  com- 
munion with  the  visible  Church,  than  you  lay 
upon  the  rigid  peculiarities  of  Calvinism."* 

It  is  not  here  asserted  that  Presbyterians  repre- 
sent a  belief  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Calvin- 
ism as  necessary  to  our  being  in  a  covenanted 
state;  on  the  contrary,  in  saying  that  Presbyte- 
rians regard  persons  who  reject  the  doctrines  in 
question  as  violating  the  conditions  of  the  cove 

<  Hov^'fi  Letters  to  MVller,  p.  IT,  1.9, 


392  MISCELLA.NEOUS.  tET.  X. 

nant,  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  they  consider 
them  as  being  within  its  pale.  Well,  then,  Pres- 
byterians admit  that  anti-Calvinists  may  be  within 
the  covenant;  but  deny  that  they  can  fulfil  its  con- 
ditions.*  Now,  surely,  it  would  be  better  never 
to  enter  the  covenanted  state,  than  to  be  thus  in- 
capacitated to  perform  ihe  conditions  on  which  its 
blessings  are  suspended. 

The  case  is  made  worse  for  you  by  explanation. 

•  Faith  is  one  of  the  conditions ;  and  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism 
you  represent  as  an  essential  branch  of  the  Christian  sclieme— so  essen- 
tial, that  without  them,  "  the  whole  plan  of  salvation  is  nothing  better 
than  a  gloomy  system  of  possibilities  and  peradventures  ;  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  as  likely  to  land  the  believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned,  as  i» 
the  paradise  of  God."     Continuation  of  Letters y  p.  2>2)9. 


(    393    ) 

LETTER  XI. 

EXAMIXATIOJ^  OF  DR.  MILLER'S  LIFE  OF 
DR.  RODGERS. 

Sir, 

XN  the  conclusion  of  your  last  Series  of  Letters 
on  the  Christian  Ministry,  you  declare  the  object 
for  which  you  had  taken  up  your  pen  to  be  com- 
pletely attained,  and  express  a  firm  resolution  to 
engage  no  more  in  the  Episcopal  controversy. 
I  do  not  think  you  have  kept  this  resolution.  In 
a  life  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rodgers,  published  in  the 
year  1813,  you  go  out  of  your  way  to  renew 
the  attack  upon  the  Church  and  her  advocates ; 
asserting,  among  other  things,  that  the  Refor- 
mers were  almost  all  decided  Presbyterians;  that 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer  were  doctrinal 
Calvinists,  and  drew  up  Calvinistic  articles  as  a 
perpetual  standard  of  faith  for  their  Church.  When 
we  are  held  up  to  public  view  as  opposers  of  those 
religious  articles  which  we  are  sacredly  bound  to 
observe,  is  it  of  much  consequence,  think  you, 
whether  this  be  done  in  an  epistolary  or  a  biogra- 
phical form ;  in  a  work  addressed  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Churches  in  the  city  of  New-York,  or  one  de- 
dicated to  the  Ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States?  Besides,  there  are  many 
passages  in  your  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers,  which  do 
great  injustice   to  the   Episcopal   Church ;    and 

50 


394  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr'S        LET.  XU 

many  topics  arr  introduced,  which  every  principle 
of  concihation,  not  less  than  of  consistency  and 
of  poUcy,  should,  in  my  humble  judgment,  have 
led  you  to  keep  entirely  out  of  sight. 

I  have  already  endeavoured  to  show,  at  some 
length,  that  the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land were  decided  Episcopalians,  and  decided 
anti-Calvinists ;  but  still  1  think  it  proper  to  take 
a  short  notice  of  the  very  positive  assertions  which 
you  advance  on  this  subject  in  the  work  now 
under  review. 

"  An  impression  seems  to  have  been  received 
by  multitudes,  that  Luther  and  Calvin  differed 
materially  on  important  points,  particularly  on  the 
subject  of  the  divine  decrees,  or  the  doctrine  of  so- 
vereign election.  Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous 
than  this  impression.  Excepting  in  the  single 
article  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Eucharist, 
there  w^as  the  most  entire  harmony  of  opinion  be- 
tween these  two  great  Reformers."  "  Indeed,  all 
the  eminent  Reformers,  both  in  Great-Britain  and 
on  the  continent  of  Europe^  were  agreed  on  these 
points.  The  leading  men  among  them  were  all 
doctrinal  Calvinists."* 

This  is  most  positive,  and  most  unqualified  lan- 
guage. Shall  I  be  blamed  for  saying  that  no  man, 
even  moderately  acquainted  with  the  subject, 
would  thus  have  committed  his  reputation?  You 
will  recollect.  Sir,  how  frequently  you  take  occa- 
sion to  speak  of  the  limited  views,  and  slender 

*'  Life  of  Dr.  Uodgers,  p.  32,  33. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODCJERSi  396 

information  of  your  opponents.  AVhcn,  therefore, 
you  display  the  most  palpable  ignorance  of  ob- 
vious facts,  connected  with  the  great  event  of  the 
Reformation,  we  must  be  excused  for  reminding 
you  of  your  own  unpleasant  language. 

The  leading  Reformers  were  Zuingle,  Luther, 
Melancthon,  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Calvin. 

Was  Zuingle  a  Calvinisti^ 

Let  me  refer  you  to  the  explicit  testimony  of 
Mosheim.*  "  The  absolute  decree  of  God  with 
respect  to  the  future  and  everlasting  condition  of 
the  human  race,  ivliich  made  no  part  of  the  theology 
of  Zuingle,  was  an  essential  tenet  in  the  creed  of 
Calvin."t 

But  an  authority  still  more  to  our  purpose,  and 
one,  to  which,  I  am  induced  to  think,  you  will  at- 
tach even  greater  value  than  to  that  of  Mosheim, 
is  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Isaac  Milner,  the 
present  Dean  of  Carlisle,  and  President  of  Queen's 
College  in  the  University  of  Cambridge. 

"  On  a  careful  perusal  of  his  voluminous  writ- 
ings, I  am  convinced,  that  certain  peculiar  senti- 
ments, afterwards  maintained  by  Calvin,  concerning 
the  absolute  decrees  of  God,  7nade  no  part  of  the 
theology  of  the  Siviss  Reformer.^^  "  The  lament- 
able rupture  among  the  first  Reformers  was  not  oc- 
casioned by  disputes  concerning  predestination. "J 

The  historian  here  pronounces  an  opinion  per- 
fectly coincident  with  that  of  Mosheim  : — he  pro- 

*  I  have  not  access  to  the  writing's  of  Zuing'le. 

f  Century  16,  book  II.  sect.  iii.  part  3. 

t  Milner's  History  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  toI.  v.  p.  570,  57U 


396  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's        LET.  XI* 

nounces  it,  too,  in  the  most  unhesitating  terms, 
and  after  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  subject. 
Mark  the  force  of  his  language.  **  Certain  pecu- 
tiAii  sentiments,  aftf:r wards  maintained  by  CaU 
t>m."  The  author  seems  to  discriminate  Calvin 
from  all  the  other  Reformers,  and  to  represent  the 
predestinarian  scheme  as  originating  with  him  ; 
especially  when  we  take  the  sentence  just  quoted 
in  connexion  vvith  one  which  immediately  follows 
it — ^^  the  rupture  among  the  first  Reformers  was 
not  occasioned  by  disputes  concerning  predestina- 
tion." 

Pecitliar  sentiments  of  Calvin-^sentiments  af- 
terwards maintained  by  Calvin — sentiments  upon 
ivhic/i  the  disputes  among  the  first  Reformers  did  not 
turn. 

The  following  unequivocal  passage  is  in  the  Li- 
turgy of  the  Church  of  Zurich,  of  which  Zuingle 
was  the  founder.  "  Consider,  therefore,  that  it  is 
the  will  of  God  our  Saviour,  that  all  men  should 
attain  unto  the  knowledge  of  his  will,  through  oui 
only  mediator  Jesus  Christ,  who  gave  himself  up 
for  the  redemption  of  all  mankind.'^^^ 

Were  Luther  and  Melancthon  Calvinists? 

This  question  has  been  briefly  touched  already; 
but  its  iiJiporlance  demands  a  more  full  examina- 
tion. 

Luther  and  Melancthon  at  one  period  held  the 
doctrine  of  a  strict  philosophical  necessity.  The 
followers  of  Luther,  however,  strenuously  contend 

•  Liturgia  Figurina,  London,  1693. 


r.Et.  %l.  LIFE  OF  Ol{.  K0DGER9.  397 

that  even  the  harshest  of  his  opinions  cannot  be 
luiderstood  in  a  sense  favonraljle  to  the  Calvinistic 
system.*  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  opinions  in  ques- 
tion were  entertained  by  Luther  and  Melancthoa 
only  hi  the  very  earhest  part  of  tlicir  career;  they 
soon  became  convinced  of  their  error,  and  did 
liot  hesitate  formally  to  confess  and  renounce  it. 
So  early  as  the  year  1527,  a  form  of  doctrine  was 
drawn  up  by  Melancthon,  for  the  Churches  of 
Saxony,  in  which  the  free  will  of  man  in  acts  of 
morality  was  expressly  asserted.  This  work  was 
afterwards  re-published  by  Luther,  with  expres- 
sions of  his  approbation;  insomuch,  that  Erasmus, 
upon  seeing  the  work,  thus  remarked  upon  it — 
"  The  Lutheran  fever  daily  grows  more  mild;  sd 
much  so,  that  Luther  himself  writes  apologies  for 
several  things,  and,  among  the  rest,  for  the  very 
one  on  account  of  which  he  has  been  held  to 
be  a  heretic  and  a  madman.'^t  Luther,  indeed, 
did  not  scruple  to  confess  that  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Reformation  he  had  not  completely 
settled  his  creed  ;t  and  in  his  last  work  of  im- 

•  See  Pet.  Haberkornii  Solida  et  Necessaria  Vindicatio,  Lib.  Art. 
Luther.  For  this,  and  for  every  thing-  relative  to  the  opinions  of  Lu- 
ther iind  Mehmcthon,  on  points  connected  with  the  predestinarian  con- 
troversy, I  beg^  leave,  once  for  all,  to  refer  to  Dr.  Laurence's  Bampton 
Tjectures,  where  the  subject  is  fully  discussed,  and  the  different  au- 
thorities are  minutely  quoted.  It  would  swell  the  present  work  to  much 
too  great  a  size  to  give  numerous  extracts  from  the  writing's  of  Luther, 
Melancthon,  and  others ;  T,  therefore,  content  myself  with  referring 
the  reader  to  the  lectures  before  mentioned,  in  which  he  will  find  full 
satisfaction. 

■j-  \nno  1528.  Epistolx,  lib.  xx.  ep.  63.  Erasmus  and  Luther  ha^ 
previously  been  engaged  in  controversy  on  tlie  subject  of  th©  will 

i  Opera  Witteb.  vol.  vii.  p.  139. 


398  EXAMINATION  OP  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XJ. 

portance,  the  Commentary  upon  Genesis,  he  ex- 
pressly apologizes  for  his  former  opinions.*     Me- 
lancthon   appears,  from  his  letters,  to   have  re- 
nounced and  condemned  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration, as  early  as  the  year  1529,  which  was 
previous  to  the  session  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.f 
Before  that  Diet  was  laid,  as  is  well  known,  the 
famous  Lutheran  Confession,  drawn  up  by  Me- 
lancthon;  in  this  Confession,  the  obnoxious  tenets 
alluded  to  do  not  appear.     The  celebrated  work 
of  Melancthon,  entitled,  "  Loci  Theologici,"  fur- 
nishes decisive  evidence  of  a  change  in  his  opi- 
nions :   in  the  first  edition  of  this  work,  the  doc- 
trine of  fatality  is  asserted;  but  in  the  year  1533, 
a  new  and  enlarged  edition  appeared,  when  the 
obnoxious  tenet  was  exchanged  for  the  opposite 
one   of  contingency.     The    doctrine   of  the    co- 
operation of  man  with  divine    grace   in  the  act 
of  conversion,  is  most  unequivocally  asserted  in 
the  "  Loci  Theologici."t     Luther,  indeed,  never 
went  so  far  as  to  deny,   in  some  sense,  this  co- 
operation, even  in  his  controversy  with  Erasmus; 
— a  fact  which  Erasmus  himself  confesses.^ 

The  universality  of  grace  is  clearly  declared  in 
the  correspondence  and  other  writings  of  Luther. 
For  this  I  may  refer  you  to  the  celebrated  German 
historian,  Seckendorf,  who  supports  his  declara- 
tion  on  the   subject,   by  extracts  from  Luther's 


•  Opera,  vol.  vi.  p.  355.  j  Epist.  Lib.  Lond.  p.  407. 

*  See  the  chapter  De  Libero  Arbitrio. 

$  Opera  Brasmi,  vol.  x.  p.  1480.  ed.  Lug.  Bat,  1706. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  R0DQER8.  399 

writings.*     Indeed,  the  idea   of  grace  being  of- 
fered to  all,  but  bestowed  only  on  a  few,  Luther 
reprobated  with  the  utmost  severity  of  language.! 
The  same  doctrine   was  repeatedly  advanced  by 
Melancthon.     Both  these  eminent  men  also  ex- 
pressly and  strongly  maintained  the  defectibility 
of  grace;   condemning  the   opposite  doctrine  in 
the  most  pointed  terms.     They  held  that  our  fall 
from  grace  may  be  both  total  and  finalX     It  may 
be  well  to  present  you  with  a  short  passage  from 
Melancthon  on  this  point.     "  They  who  are  led 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  the  sons  of  God;  but 
when  they  act  wickedly,  they  grieve  and  expel 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  then  they  cease  to  be  the  sons  of 
God."^     "  I   affirm  that  many  falling  into  great 
wickedness,  drive  from  them  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
become  again  justly   exposed  to  eternal  punish- 
ment ;  some  of  whom,  however,  again  becoming 
penitent,  as  Aaron  and  David,  return  to  God,  and 
are  received  into  his  favour ;  many  do  not  return^ 
but  fall  into  eternal  misery.''|| 

The  language  held  by  Luther  and  Melancthon 
on  the  subject  of  predestination  is  widely  different, 
indeed,  from  that  of  Calvin.  Let  me  once  more 
refer  you  to  a  testimony,  to  which,  I  persuade  my- 
self, you  will  attach  high  value ;  that  of  the  learned 
and  pious  Dean  of  Carlisle,  in  his  very  interesting 
Ecclesiastical  History.  "  Content  with  what 
Scripture  had  revealed,  he  never  undertook  to  ex- 

*  Seckendorf,  vol.  i.  lib.  ii.  sect.  43.       f  Post  ilia  Domestica,  p.  '7  ■ 

i  Luth.  Oper.  vol.  v.  p.  405.    Ibid.  vol.  vi.  p.  98. 

5  Lo<ri  Thcologici,  p.  280,  !|  opera,  vol.  i.  p,  37'}. 


400  EXAMINATION  OF  DR,  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

plain  this  difFicult  subject  with  any  thing  like  a 
systematic  precision;  much  less  did  he  ever  think 
proper  to  propose  the  arduous  speculations  con- 
cerning the  divine  decrees,  as  necessary  articles 
of  a  Christian's  faith.*'*  "  He  argues  that  God 
chose,  and  seriously  decreed  from  eternity,  the 
possibility  of  the  salvation  and  everlasting  happi- 
ness of  all  men."t  Calvin,  on  the  contrary,  ven- 
tures to  speculate  with  great  precision  on  the 
secret  decrees  of  God;  setting  forth  a  complete 
system  upon  the  subject,  and  representing  it  as 
of  vital  importance  in  the  Christian  scheme.  So 
far  from  admitting  a  possibility  of  salvation  to  all, 
he  holds,  that  God,  by  an  eternal  and  uncondi- 
tional decree,  consigned  the  great  body  of  man- 
kind to  inevitable  perdition.  It  is  impossible  to 
find  a  more  fervent  dissuasive  than  is  contained 
in  the  writings  of  Luther,  from  those  intricate 
speculations,  concerning  the  divine  decrees,  which 
constituted  the  favourite  occupation  of  Calvin. 
^'  Many  have  perished  in  the  indulgence  of  such 
curious  inquiries;  it  is  a  temptation  which  leads 
even  to  blasphemy."!  "  The  thought  of  investi- 
gating causes  is  pernicious  and  pestilent;  bringing 
with  it  inevitable  distruction;  especially  when 
we  ascend  too  high,  and  undertake  to  philoso- 
phize upon  predestinatiofi.'^^^  "  Those  stoical  dis- 
putations," said  Melancthon,  ^'  are  to  be  exe- 
crated, which  some  introduced,  who  imagine, 
that  the  elect  always  retain  the  Holy  Spirit,  even 

•   Milner's  History  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  vol.  v.  p.  571. 

^  ISiH.  T«»l.  V.  p.  S7i.     t  Ibid.  p.  S7'2.     *  Opera  Lutheri,  vol.  vi.  p.  204. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  401 

when  they  commit  atrocious  crimes — Let  us  not 
confirm  in  fools  security  and  bhnchiess."* 

Perfectly  conformable  to  these  wise  reflections 
was  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  as  held  by  the 
celebrated  men  of  whom  we  are  speaking.  In 
order  to  understand  it  properly,  it  is  necessary  to 
have  reference,  for  a  moment,  to  the  scholastic 
doctrine,  on  this  subject,  which  they  so  strenuously 
opposed. 

In  the  Church  of  Rome,  immediately  before 
the  Reformation,  the  doctrine  of  an  individual 
predestination  prevailed — that  is,  the  predestina- 
tion of  certain  persons  to  future  happiness;  but 
this  predestination  was  represented  as  conditional, 
and  founded  on  foreknowledge.  The  radical  error 
of  the  Chufch  of  Rome  on  this  point,  however, 
consisted  in  connecting  the  doctrine  of  human 
merit  with  that  of  predestination.  She  held  a 
predestination  of  one  man  to  future  happiness  m 
preference  to  another,  not  by  an  absolute  decree, 
but  on  the  ground  of  his  foreseen  worthiness. 
The  power  of  man  to  merit  grace,  and,  by  the 
help  of  merited  grace,  to  merit  Heaven,  was  ond 
of  the  foulest  corruptions  of  the  papacy;  striking 
directly  at  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  salvation 
through  the  sole  merits  of  Christ.  Against  thi» 
corruption.  Luther  and  Melancthon  never  ceased 
to  inveigh.  But,  in  rejecting  tlie  doctrine  of  the 
predestination  of  particular  persons  to  happiness 
as  the  meritorious  objects  of  merey,,  they  were  very 

*  Loci  Theologlci,  p.  17,S,  126^ 
nl 


402  EXAMINATION  OF  DK.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

far  from  going  into  the  contrary  extreme  of  de- 
crees consigning  ti  specific  number  of  persons  to 
happiness,  and  a  specific  number  to  misery,  with- 
out reference  to  faith,  or  works,  or  any  other 
thing  in  the  creature,  moving  thereunto.  This 
desperate  extreme  was  reserved  for  the  adventur- 
ous ambition  of  Calvin;  both  Luther  and  Melanc- 
thon  warned  their  followers  to  beware  of  it  in  the 
most  urgent  and  affectionate  terms.  They  as- 
sumed the  Gospel  promise,  which  they  expressly 
represented  to  be  universal,  as  the  basis  of  pre- 
destination; considering  predestination,  not  as 
fixing  the  future  state  of  individuals,  but  as  relat- 
ing to  the  Christian  Church  viewed  as  a  collective 
body.  In  a  word,  while  the  Church  of  Rome 
held  the  doctrine  of  a  predestination  of  individu- 
als to  grace  J  on  the  ground  of  congruous  merit;  and 
to  glory ^  on  the  ground  of  condign  merit;  Luther 
and  Melancthon  contended  that  the  only  predes- 
tination revealed  in  Scripture,  is  a  gratuitous  pre- 
destination of  a  collective  body  to  spiritual  privi- 
leges in  this  life ;  of  the  Christian  Church  to  her 
connexion  with  Clirist,  her  supreme  Head. 

The  following  passages  from  Melancthon  will 
place  his  sentiments  and  those  of  Luther,  on  the 
subject  before  us,  in  a  very  clear  point  of  light. 

"  There  are  two  things  to  be  considered  in  the 
promise  of  the  Gospel,  to  wit — that  it  gratuitously 
offers  mercy,  and  that  the  offer  is  universal.  For 
these  two  things,  at  present,  greatly  exercise  the 
minds  of  men.  One  while  there  is  a  dispute 
about  nitfit^  it  being  said  that  we  are  not  elected 


LET.  XL  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODCKUS.  -MKi 

because  we  are  unworthy.  At  another,  the  dis- 
pute is  about  particularity ;  it  is  said  that  even  if 
we  were  worthy,  still  God  has  elected  his  own 
particular  ones,  to  whom  he  will  be  especially 
favourable.  And,  tlierefore,  it  is  denied  that  sal- 
vation is  to  be  hoped  for  by  us  because  we  may 
not  be  in  that  number.  Both  of  these  imagina- 
tions are  to  be  rejected,  and  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  pious  minds  should  be  diligently 
fortified  against  them.  We  ought  neither  to  lay 
stress  upon  our  worthy  nor  convert  the  universal 
promise  into  a  particular  one."* 

^'  Concerning  the  effect  of  election,  let  us  hold 
out  this  consolation,  that  God,  not  willing  that 
the  whole  human  race  should  perish,  always  of 
his  mercy,  and  on  account  of  his  Son,  calls, 
draws,  and  collects  a  Church,  and  receives  those 
who  assent,  and  thus  always  wills  that  there 
should  be  perpetually  some  Church  which  he 
assists  and  saves."t  "  But  you  will  say,  this  con- 
solation is  so  far  a  benefit,  that  I  know  that  a 
Church  is  preserved  for  others ;  but  perhaps  that 
profits  me  nothing,  and  how  can  I  know  who  are 
the  elect.  I  answer.  This  general  consolation  is 
beneficial  to  you  also,  because  you  ought  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Church  is  preserved  for  you  also, 
and  the  command  of  God  is  eternal  and  immuta- 
ble, that  you  also  should  hear  his  Son,  should  ex- 
ercise penitence,  and  believe  that  you  are  to  be 
received  on  account  of  the  Mediator."! 

*  Loci  Theologlci,  de  Prscdest.  ed.  1535.  f  Ibid. 

^  Opera  Melanctb.  vol.  ir.  p.  161. 


404  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XI. 

The  following  passage  from  Bucer,  relative 
to  Melancthon's  doctrine  of  predestination,  will 
show  how  that  doctrine  was  originally  understood. 
"  The  question  is  to  be  repelled — Are  we  predes- 
tinated ?  For,  as  has  been  said,  he  who  doubts 
of  this,  cannot  believe  that  he  is  either  called  or 
justified ; — that  is,  he  cannot  be  a  Christian.  It 
is,  therefore,  to  be  assumed,  that  wc  are  all  fore- 
known, pre-appointed,  separated  by  God  from  the 
rest,  and  selected  for  this  end,  that  we  n^ay  be 
eternally  preserved,  and  that  this  purpose  of  God 
cannot  be  changed;  and  hence  all  our  thinking 
and  care  should  be  directed  to  this  point,  that  we 
may  answer  to  this  predestination  and  calling  of 
God,  that  we  may  co-operate  to  eternal  life,  ac- 
cording to  the  strength  which  the  Lord  hath  ever 

supplied Certainly,  those  whom  God  calls,  if 

they  do  but  folloiv  the  call^  he  hath  predestinated 
and  foreknown  ;  he  will  also  justify  and  glorify."* 

''  As  the  preaching  of  repentance  is  universal, 
50  also  the  promise  of  grace  is  universal.  Let  us, 
therefore,  remove  from  Paul  stoical  disputations 

which  ov^erturn  faith  and  prayer Against  these 

imaginations  let  us  learn  the  will  of  the  Deity 
from  the  Gospel. "f  *'  I  have  often  said  that  the 
consideration  of  universality  is  necessary,  so  that 
every  one  should  include  himself  in  the  universal 
promise,  nor  ascribe  to  the  Deity  a  respect  of  per- 
sons, or  contradictory  wills.'^'X 

It  is  truly  astonishing  that  any  man  possessing 

•  Eiiar.  Epist.  ad  Rom.  p.  359.  ed.  1536. 

t  Loci  Thcologici,  dc  Pr2:'iei.t.  eel.  1545.         +  Opera,  vol.  ir.  p.  168. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODaERS.  405 

the  si  lightest  knowledge  of  (he  history  of  the  Re- 
formation, should  venture  to  ])r()nounce  Melanc- 
thon  a  Calvinist.  Enough  has,  probably,  been 
already  said  on  this  point ;  but  evidence  so  de- 
cisive and  so  particular  remains  yet  to  be  pro- 
duced, that  1  must  be  excused  for  trespassing 
somewhat  longer  tipon  your  patience. 

''  In  the  beginning  (of  the  Reformation)  the 
stoical  disputes  among  us  concerning  fate,  w-erc 
too  horrid,  and  they  were  injurious  to  discipline. 
Wherefore,  I  beseech  you  not  to  think  of  any 
such  formula  of  doctrine."* 

'^  I  am  no  stoic ;  but  contend  more  strongly 
with  the  family  of  Zeno  concerning  fate,  than 
our  warriors  have  fought  %t  the  Danube  and  the 
Elbe."t  "  Let  us,  therefore,  remove  from  the 
Deity  this  stoical  seventy,  and  let  us  consider  it 
as  certain  that  we  are  beloved  by  him."t  "  I  un- 
derstand there  are  some  who  are  about  to  make 
war  upon  me  concerning  this  stoical  necessity, 
and  if  they  move  the  subject  I  shall  think  it  a  duty 
I  owe  to  God  and  the  Church  to  refute  those  con- 
tumelious ravings  against  God."^  "  Those  stoi- 
cal disputations  are  to  be  execrated  which  some 
bring  forward,  contending  that  all  sins  are  equal, 
and  that  the  elect  always  retain  the  Holy  Spirit, 
even  when  they  allow  themselves  in  atrocious 
lapses."|| . 

This,  it  will  be  admitted,  is  very  strong  lan~ 

•  Melan.  Eplst.  44,  lib.  3.         f  Epist.  Lond.  p.  370.         Ubid.  p.  55^. 
§  Adiio  1555.  Ibid.  p.  458.     See  also,  p.  266,  271,  405,  463. 
U  liOci  Theolog-ici,  p.  126. 


406  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XJ. 

2:nage.  Now,  it  is  certain  that  Melancthon,  in  the 
use  of  this  language,  had  a  particular  reference 
to  the  opinions  of  Calvin.  On  more  than  one  oc- 
casion he  did  not  scruple  to  brand  Calvin  as  the 
Zeno  of  his  age. 

"  Lelius  writes  to  me,  that  so  great  are  the 
disputes  at  Geneva,  about  stoical  necessity^  that  a 
certain  person  venturing  to  differ  from  Zeno^  has 
been  shut  up  in  prison.  Oh  unhappy  state  of 
things !  The  true  and  wholesome  doctrine  is  ob- 
3cured  by  disputes  foreign  to  it."* 

Beza,  in  his  life  of  Calvin,  expressly  tells  us, 
that  Melancthon,  in  the  year  1552,  began  to  mark 
the  Reformers  of  Geneva  as  the  introducers  of  a 
stoical  fate: — *'  Genevenses  Stoicum  fatum  in- 
vehentes  notare."t  In  perfect  consistency  with 
this,  was  the  conduct  of  Melancthon,  when  the 
Articles  of  Concord,  drawn  up  in  the  year  1549, 
between  the  Churches  of  Zurich  and  Geneva, 
were  presented  to  him: — He  indignantly  erased 
the  article,  de  electione  % 

But  the  radical  difference  of  opinion,  on  this 
subject,  between  Calvin  and  Melancthon,  will 
abundantly  appear  from  their  correspondence. 

A  life  of  Calvin,  written  by  a  clergyman  of  your 
own  religious  society,^  is  now  lying  before  me; 
with  translations  of  some  of  his  letters  annexed. 

•  Epist.  IvOncL  p.  390.  f  Vita  Calvini,  anno  1552. 

t  "  We  carefully  teach  tliatGod  does  not  exert  his  power  proiniscu- 
»usW  upon  all  wlio  receive  the  sacraments,  but  only  upon  the  Electa 
.IrticU  16. 

$  The  Rev.  Elijah  Waterman,  Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Congfregfa- 
tioD,  JJridgeport,  Connecticut. 


LKT.  XI.  LIFE  OP  DR.   RODGKRS.  40? 

Let  me  present  you  with  a  few  extracts  frora 
these  translations;  they  will  be  of  greater  weii^ht 
with  you,  probably,  than  any  translations  that 
might  be  made  by  myself;  be:=;ide  thai  I  shall  be 
saved  the  trouble  of  a  tedious  examination  of  the 
originals. 

"  Calvin  to  Melancthon. 

•^  I  havo  been  told  that  you  were  so  much  of- 
fended at  some  of  my  too  free  admonitions,  that 
you  tore  my  letter  to  pieces  before  several  wit- 
nesses. The  person  who  related  this  was  not  in- 
deed worthy  of  much  credit;  but  as  it  appeared 
to  be  confirmed  by  various  signs  for  a  long  time,  I 
was  at  length  constrained  to  suspect  that  some 
part  of  it  might  be  true."*  "  It  is  no  small  grief 
to  me,  that  our  method  of  teaching  is  manifestly 

observed  to  be  too  discordant I  candidly  confess, 

that  religion  prevents  me  from  acceding  to  you  on 
this  point  of  doctrine;  as  you  appear  to  me  to 
dispute  too  metaphysically  concerning  the  free- 
dom of  the  will It  cannot  be  attributed  to  an 

oversight,  that  a  man  of  your  acuteness,  caution, 
and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  should 
confound  the  election  of  God  with  those  pro- 
mises which  are  common  to  all.  Nothing  is  more 
evident  than  that  the  preaching  of  the  word  is 
promiscuously  common  to  all  persons  ;  but  that 
the  spirit  of  faith  is  given  by  special  privilege  tt3 

*  Waterman's  Life  of  Calvin,  p.  367 


40S  EXAMINATION  OF  DK.  MILLER's         LKT.  XI. 

tlie  elect  alone I  hear,  when  you  received  the 

forriiula  of  our  union  with  the  Church  of  Zurich, 
taking  a  pen,  you  erased  the  sentence,  which 
cautiously  and  soberly  distinguishes  the  elect  from 
the  reprobate.  This  was  totally  different  from 
vour  usual  moderation,  not  to  say  more."* 

Still  you  tell  us,  in  the  most  peremptory  lan- 
o-uage,  that  a  perfect  harmony  of  opinion  existed 
between  Luther,  Melancthon,  and  Calvin  on  the 
subject  of  the  divine  decrees;  indeed,  that  all 
the  leading  Reformers,  both  in  Great-Britain  and 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  were  doctrinal  Cal- 
vinists.  The  very  reverse  of  this  is  the  truth, 
Calvin  stood  almost  alone  among  the  Reformers 
on  this  subject.  Some  of  the  opinions,  which 
pass  under  his  name,  prevailed,  in  a  degree,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  ;  but  he  greatly 
added  to  them,  and  embodied  them,  finally,  into  a 
regular  system.  In  the  language  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical historian,  Milner,  the  opinions  concerning; 
the  absolute  decrees  of  God  were  peculiar  to  Cal- 
vin; they  were  maintained  by  him,  long  after  the 
time  of  Zuingle ;  the  rupture  among  tlie  first  Re- 
formers had  no  connexion  with  disputes  upon  the 
subject  of  predestination.!  Indeed,  it  is  not  only 
true  that  Calvin  was  the  first  of  the  Reformers  wuo 
adhered  to  the  scheme  of  absolute  predestination; 
there  is  further  strong  reason  to  believe,  th;.t  he 
did  not  himself  embrace  that  scheme  until  the 
latter  part  of  his  career.     See  the  langimge  which 

•  Waterman's  Life  of  Calvin,  p.  370,  371. 

f  Milner's  History  of  the  Chtirch  of  Cbrist,  vol.  v.  p.  570,  57t, 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  409 

he  uses  in  the  preface  to  a  Frcncli  translation  of 
the  New  TestanieMt,  published  Uy  him  in  the  year 
1535.  "  Our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Mediator,  was 
the  one,  true,  eternal  Son  of  God,  whom  ihe  Fa- 
ther was  to  send  into  the  world  to  collect  all  mea 
from  that  horrible  state  of  devastation  and  dis- 
persion occasioned  by  the  fall At  length,  v^hen 

the  fullness  of  time  pre-ordained  by  the  Lord, 
was  come,  the  Messiah,  so  much  desired  lor  so 
many  ages,  made  his  appearance;  and  he  fully 
performed  all  those  things  which  were  necessary 

for  the  redemption  of  all  men By  one  C  hrist 

the  whole  human  race  was  to  be  reconciled  to  God, 
as  is  set  forth,  and  most  amply  demonstrated  in 

the  writings  of  the  new  covenant All  are  called 

to  that  inheritance  without  any  respect  of  persons, 

No  one  is  excluded  from  this  inheritance  who 

admits  and  embraces  Christ,  as  he  is  ofiered  by 
the  Father  for  the  salvation  of  alV^ 

Calvin  avoided  this  mode  of  expression  in  his 
subsequent  works. 

But  the  opinions  of  Calvin,  you  will  say,  are 
most  fully  set  forth  in  his  Institutes  of  the  Chris* 
tian  religion,  published  so  early  as  the  year  1335. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  an  error,  relative  to 
the  opinions  of  Calvin  on  the  subject  of  Episco- 
pacy, into  which  you  have  been  drawn  by  a  mis- 
take connected  with  the  publication  of  his  Insti- 
tutes. It  is  true,  the  Institutes  were  first  published 
in  the  year  1535;  but  they  appeared  then  in  a  very 
small  and  imperfect  form.  Beza,  in  his  life  of  Cal- 
vin, calls  the  publication  of  1 535,  a  mere  sketch 


410  BXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's        LET.  XI. 

of  the  great  work  as  it  came  forth  in  1558.  Then 
it  consisted  of  four  books  regularly  divided  into 
eighty  chapters;  whereas,  in  the  year  1535,  the 
number  of  chapters  which  it  contained  was  no 
more  than  twenty.  Now,  the  question  is,  whe- 
ther the  predestinarian  scheme,  as  it  appears  in 
the  edition  of  1558,  was  contained  in  that  of 
1535?  You,  certainly,  cannot  prove  that  it  was;  on 
the  contrary,  evidence  is  to  be  produced  that  it 
was  not  contained  in  the  edition  of  1535,  which 
will  go  far,  1  think,  towards  satisfying  an  unpre- 
judiced mind.  We  know,  for  example,  that  Cal- 
vin, in  works  published  at  the  same  time,  held  a 
language  quite  inconsistent  with  that  of  his  Insti- 
tutes in  their  present  state,* 

Further — Light  is  thrown  on  this  subject  by  the 
proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  It  was  the 
practice  of  this  Council  to  connect,  with  the  de- 
crees which  they  published,  a  condemnation  of 
opposite  errors.  Now,  Father  Paul,  in  his  His- 
tory of  the  Council  of  Trent,  expressly  says — 
*'  in  the  books  of  Luther,  in  the  Augustan  Confes- 
sion, and  in  the  Apologies  and  Colloquies,  there 
was  nothing  found  that  deserved  censure,"  rela- 
tive to  predestination,  "  but  much  in  the  writings 
of  the  Zuinglians."  But  Calvin  had  published  hie 
Institutes,  with  a  most  eloquent  and  remarkablie 
dedication  to  Francis  I.  in  the  year  1535;  and  the 
work  possessed,  from  the  moment  of  its  ap- 
pearance, no  little  celebrity,  both  in  the  scientific 

•  Witness  his  preface  to  the  Trench  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, just  mentioned. 


LBT.  XL  LIl^  OP  DR.  R01>UER3.  411 

and  religious  world.  The  proceedings  of  ih^ 
Council  of  Trent,  to  which  we  have  alluded,  look 
place  in  the  year  1546.  Is  it  probable  that  the 
Council,  in  censuring  error  relative  to  predes- 
tination, would  pass  by  the  work  of  Calvin,  and 
fix  upon  works  of  no  reputation,  whose  authors 
Father  Paul  has  not  even  thought  it  ne(  essary 
to  preserve  from  oblivion  by  mentioning  their 
names?* 

Still  further — The  dispute  relative  to  predestina- 
tion did  not  break  out  until  the  year  1551.  Then 
we  find  Calvin  engaged  in  a  violent  controversy 
with  Bolsec  and  Castellio ;  nor  did  he  succeed  in 
introducing  his  doctrine  even  into  the  Church  of 
Geneva  until  after  a  severe  struggle.  A  difference 
arose,  at  the  same  period,  between  Calvin  and 
Melancthon;  the  latter  styling  Calvin  Zeno,  and 
indignantly  erasing  the  article,  De  Electione^  from 
the  Form  of  Concord  between  the  Churches  of 
Geneva  and  Zurich.  Calvin,  in  his  letters  to 
Melancthon,  complains  bitterly  of  this,  and  urges 
him  to  modify  his  sentiments;  to  which  Me- 
lancthon, however,  makes  no  reply.  But,  if  the 
peculiar  opinions  of  Calvin,  on  the  subject  of 
the  divine  decrees,  were  published  in  the  year 

•  This  fact  is  stated  with  a  similar  view,  by  Bishop  White,  in  his 
"Comparison  of  the  Controversy  between  the  Calvinists  and  Arminians 
with  the  Doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church."f  I  know  no 
works  which  place  the  question,  relative  to  the  Calvinism  of  our  Ar* 
tides,  in  so  just  and  striking*  a  point  jf  light  as  those  of  Bishop  White 
and  Dr.  Laurence. 

t  Sec  Clinrchman's  Magazine,  new  series,  vol.  ili.  p.  13. 


41:^  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER'S         LET.  XI.  . 

1535,  how  happened  it  that  there  was  no  contro- 
Ter'^v  about  til  em  until  1551  ? 

There  is  an  addilional  fact  on  this  subject  which 
is  worthy  of  being  mentioned. 

It  appears,  from  the  correspondence  between 
Melancthon  and  Crannicr,  that  the  latter  con- 
sulle  I  the  for  ner,  in  the  year  1548,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a  public  standard  of  faith  for  the  Church 
of  England.  Melancthon,  in  reply  to  the  letter  of 
Cranmer,  conjured  the  Archbishop  to  extend  the 
benefit  of  his  labours  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
Ena:lish  Church,  and  to  draw  up  a  Confession  in 
which  the  whole  Protestant  world  might  unite.* 
In  conformity  with  this  advice,  Cranmer  addressed 
letters,  in  the  year  1551,  to  several  of  the  conti- 
nental Reformers;  among  the  rest,  to  Calvin  and 
Bullinger.  Now,  is  it  probable  that  either  Me- 
lancthon or  Criinmer  would  have  applied  to  Cal- 
vin, on  such  a  subject,  after  he  had  exhibited,  at 
full  len2:th,  and  in  a  deliberate  work  like  the  In- 
stitutes  of  the  Christian  Religion,  that  system  of 
doctrine  which  Melancthon  branded  as  Stocism, 
and  for  which  he  marked  Calvin  as  the  Zeno  of 
the  age  ?  Could  any  hope  have  been  entertained 
of  union  with  a  man  w  ho  brought  forward,  as  of 
the  essence  of  Christianity,  a  principle  which  Me- 
lancthon indignantly  expunged  from  a  public  do- 
cument, and  of  which  he  warned  Cranmer,  in  the 
most  urgent  terms,  to  beware  ?t 

Such,  then,  are  the  circumstances  which  induce 

•  Eplst.  Llhri.  I^iv.l.  Epist.  66,  lil).  1 
j  Ibid.  Fpist.  4i,  lib.  3. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DU.  RODGERS.  413 

a  belief  that  Calvin  did  not  advance  his  pernliar 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  |)redestinati()n  until  the 
latter  part  of  his  life. 

1.  In  a  work  published  by  him,  in  the  year  1535, 
we  meet  with  language  very  different  from  that 
whicli  is  held  in  the  present  edition  of  his  Institutes. 
2.  The  Council  of  Trent,  in  censuring  error  rela- 
tive to  predestination,  pass  by  the  Institutes  of 
Calvin,  and  select  the  works  of  some  obscure  fol- 
lowers of  Zuingle.  3.  There  was  no  dispute  among 
the  early  Reformers  on  the  subject  of  predestina- 
tion ;  in  the  correspondence  of  Calvin  and  Me- 
lancthon  no  trace  of  a  dilTerence  between  them,  re- 
lative to  the  divine  decrees,  iippears  previous  to  the 
year  1552.*     It  was  not  until  1551  that  the  violent 


*  I  hasten  to  lay  before  you  the  following"  passage  in  the  correspon- 
dence of  Melancthon  and  Calvin,  which  I  have  just  met  with  .f 

"  As  to  the  question  of  Predestination,  1  hud,  at  I'ubingeii,  a  friend, 
the  learned  Francis  Stadian,  who  used  to  say,  that  he  approved  of  these 
two  points  :  That  all  thing-s  came  to  pass,  as  divine  Providence  had 
decreed;  and  yet  that  all  thing's  were  conting-ent.  These  cannot  be  re- 
conciled with  each  other.  I  hold  the  hypothesis,  that  God  is  not  the 
cause  of  sin,  nor  docs  he  -will  sin.  I  admit  also  conting-ency,  in  this 
our  infirmity  of  understanding-;  that  the  common  people  may  know 
that  David  fell  freely  by  his  own  will ;  and  I  think  that  he,  when  he 
had  the  Holy  Spirit,  might  have  retained  it,  and  that  in  the  strugg-le, 
there  was  some  action  of  the  will.  Although  these  thing-s  may  be  dis- 
puted with  more  subtlety,  yet  when  proposed  in  this  nir.nner,  they  .ap- 
pear accommodated  to  the  government  of  our  minds  Let  us  a^'cuse  our 
own  will  when  we  fall,  tmd  not  seek,  in  the  counsels  of  God,  an  ex- 
cuse for  lifting  ourselves  up  against  him.  Let  us  believe,  that  God 
will  afford  assistance,  and  be  present  with  those  who  strive.  Mcvsr 
-5-ex>)<rov  KdLi  ©so?  ^gtsiTravTi,  on  ft/ •will,  and  God  idll  niifct  thee  uith  help, 

t  It  is  given  as  transbitcd  by  Ihc  Rev.  EIjmU  Watcnnan,  Pastor  of  tlie  Pres- 
byterian Congregation  at  Uri(.l;;ei)ort,  Coimci-ti-^ut. 


ill  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER'S        LET.  XI. 

dispute  broke  out  in  Geneva,  where  Bolsec  openly 
attacked  Calvin  as  the  introducer  of  heretical  opi- 
nions, in  consequence  of  his  preaching  the  doc- 
says  Basil.  Attention,  therefore,  should  be  awakened  in  ourselves,  and 
the  immense  gtiodncss  of  God  should  be  praised,  since  he  has  promised 
and  administers  assistance  to  those  who  seek,  as  says  the  Lord,  that 
is,  to  those  who  take  heed  to  the  promise.  For  we  must  be  g-overned 
by  the  word  of  God,  not  opposing  the  promise,  but  assenting  to  it,  and 

that  without  any  previous  controversy I  do  not  write  these  things 

with  the  intention  of  delivering  precepts  to  a  man  the  most  learned 
and  experienced  in  the  exercises  of  piety.  For  I  knoto  that  these 
things  Of  rtftf  with  your  opinions."* 

Thus  Melancthon  addressed  Calvin  in  the  year  1543.  Of  course, 
Calvin  had  not  then  declared  that,  "  God  not  only  foresaw  that  Adam 
would  fall,  but  also  decreed  that  he  should ;"  that  "  God  blinds  the 
understandings  and  hardens  the  hearts  of  the  reprobate  to  fit  them  for 
their  doom;"  thnt  "the  necessity  of  sinning  is  cast  upon  the  repro- 
bate by  the  ordination  of  God."  He  had  not  then  censured  Chrvsos- 
torn  for  asserting  that  when  God  draws  us,  it  is  **  with  our  consenting 
will."  He  had  not  then  declared  that  human  nature,  in  consequence 
©f  the  fall  of  Adam,  became  an  unminglcd  mass  of  corruption,  and 
that  the  sinner,  in  the  change  which  he  undergoes  in  conversion, 
it  the  mere  passive  recipient  of  irresistible  grace.  He  had  not 
then  declar<^d  that  all  but  the  elect  are  uninterruptedly  inclined  to  all 
manner  of  wickedness,  and  would  be  SiW ays  positively  engasred  in  the 
perpetration  of  horrible  crimes,  if  God  did  not,  for  the  preservation 
of  burnin  society,  restrain  them  through  the  influence  of  some  sel/ah 
Biotive.-j- 

It  may,  therefore,  be  taken  for  granted,  that  in  the  year  1543,  the 
date  of  Melancthon's  letter,  Calvin  had  not  published  his  predestinarian 
theorv,  as  it  now  appears  in  his  Institutes  of  the  Clii'istian  Religion  If 
he  had  published  that  theory,  Melancthon  never  would  have  said  to 

him "  I  know  that  these  things  agree  with  your  opinions."     When,  in 

thf  year  1552,  Calvin  published  his  first  tract  in  the  Predestinarian 
Controversy,  Melancthon  did  not  hesitate  to  brand  him  as  tlie  Zeno  of 
bis  age  .  and,  in  the  same  year,  he  expunged,  with  indignation,  the  arti- 
cle, De  Elections,  from  the  Form  of  Concord  which  Calvin  bad  drawn 
up  between  the  Churches  of  Zurich  and  Geneva. 

•   Wutprnmn's  Life  of  Calvin,    p.  fiOS,  306. 

I  See  Lctt.r  viii.  of  this   work,   whtre  all   these  opinions  arc  shown  to  b6 
rintninetl  in  the  present  rdition  of  CalTin'.**  Iirstitntes- 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  R0DGER9.  414 

trine  of  absolute  predestination.  4.  In  the  year 
1548,  Melanctlion  advises  Cranmer  to  compose 
a  system  of  Articles  to  which  all  Protestants 
might  subscribe;  and  in  the  year  1551  Cranmer 
writes  to  Calvin  on  the  subject; — which  he  would 
never  have  done  if  the  peculiar  system  of  Calvia 
had  been  previously  made  known. 

It  has  been  already  mentioned  that  the  doctrine 
of  absolute  decrees  was  strongly  resisted  in  Ge- 
neva itself,  when  preached  there  by  Calvin,  in  the 
year  1551.  Great  opposition  was  also  made  in 
the  Churches  of  Switzerland.  For  this  we  have 
the  unexceptionable  testimony  of  Turretin,  who 
derived  his  information  from  the  original  docu- 
ments, as  preserved  at  Geneva.  In  a  letter  to  Arch- 
bishop Wake,  Turretin  expressly  says — ^*  Calvin 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  letter  of  Bullinger;*  he 
complained  of  it  to  Bullinger,  who  attempted  to 
justify  himself;  but  he  maintained  his  opinion  al- 
ways in  very  general  terms,  and  with  vague  ex- 
cuses "t 

The  answers  from  Berne  and  Basle  were  equally 
unsatisfactory  to  Calvin;  indeed,  the  latter  con- 
tained the  following  strong  and  explicit  language. 
"  It  is  the  wish  of  God  that  all  men  should  come 
to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth,  and  be  saved. 
He  is  the  common  Lord  of  all,  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  common  Saviour  of  «//."{ 

*  This  wag  the  answer  sent  from  Zurich  to  the  circular  which  had 
been  addressed  by  the  Ministers  of  Geneva  to  the  Helvetian  Churches. 

t  Acta  Eruditorum,  Supp.  t.  vii.  sect.  3.  Also,  Biblioth.  Germ.  vol. 
;iiii.  p.  208. 

i  See  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  341—245. 


416  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's        LET.  XI. 

It  further  ap})ears,  from  Beza's  Life  of  Calvin, 
that  the  opposition  to  his  system  of  doctrine  was 
so  strong  in  Switzerland  in  1555,  that  a  combina- 
tion of  Ministers  was  formed  against  him,  and 
that  the  preaching  of  absohite  predestination  was 
even  obstructed  in  the  Canton  of  Berne  by  pub- 
lic authority.  Tliis,  with  the  opposition  of  Cas- 
telUo  and  Melancthon,  deeply  affected  Calvin's 
mind.  "  These  things  grievously  affected  him, 
as  they  were  likely  to  do;  and  they  affected  him 
the  more  severely  as  at  that  time  the  prevalence 
of  error  was  so  great  that  he  was  hindered  by  pub- 
lic authority  from  proclaiming  the  truth."* 

It  lias  been  already  observed,  that  the  Church 
of  England  reformed  herself,  as  far  as  she  followed 
any  modern  authority,  not  upon  a  Calvinistic,  but 
upon  a  Lutheran  model.  This  subject,  however, 
merits  a  more  full  and  distinct  consideration. 

1.  During  the  period  in  which  the  Church  of 
England  was  engaged  in  reforming  her  offices, 
and  settling  her  creed,  the  Lutheran  Church  of 
Germany  was  a  mature  establishment,  and  in  the 
full  splendour  of  her  reputation.  To  her  the  eyes 
of  the  friends  of  true  religion  were  steadily  di- 
rected. Calvin,  at  this  time,  did  not  possess  the 
celebrity  which  he  finally  attained:  his  system 
was  still  in  its  infancy; — a  feeble  luminary  when 
compared  with  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  was, 
emphatically,  the  Sun  of  the  Reformation.  Of 
the  truth  of  these  assertions,  no  on6  who  has  ex- 

•  See  Laurence'3  Bamptoii  Lectures,  p.  241. 


LET.  XU  LIFE  Ot^  DR.  RODGERS.  417 

amincd  tlie  history  of  the  jicriod  in  question,  can, 
for  a  moment,  doubt.  Calvinism  had  not  yet  1)0- 
come  a  cliaracteristical  appelhition.  Fox,  the 
Martyrologist,  dwells,  at  great  length,  u()on  the 
writings  and  merits  of  Luther  and  Zuingh*,  but 
the  name  of  Calvin  he  does  not  particularly  dis- 
tinguish. It  appears,  too,  from  tiie  history  of  Fox, 
that  the  martyrs,  who  suflered  in  the  reign  of  JViary, 
were  charged,  not  with  the  heresy  of  Calvin,  but 
with  that  of  Luther,  or  of  Zuingle.  AVhat  more 
conclusive  evidence  could  be  farnished  that  Cal- 
vinism, at  the  period  of  the  Reformation  under 
Cranmer,  was  in  the  infancy  of  its  reputation  and 
its  influence?  * 

Evidence  of  the  same  decisive  character  may 
be  derived,  on  this  subject,  from  the  proceedings 
of  the  Council  of  Trent.  It  is  quite  clear,  from 
those  proceedings,  that  Calvin  was  not  regarded, 
at  the  time,  as  a  person  of  distinguished  import- 
ance; frequent  mention  being  made  of  Luther  and 
his  system,  vvliile  Calvin  is  not  i^^ticed.  Ac- 
cordingly, Mosheim,  who  had  thoroughly  exa- 
mined this  subject,  expressly  tells  us,  that  at  the 
rise  of  the  Predestinarian  controversy,  in  1551,  the 
influence  of  Calvin  was  very  limited. 

It  is,  then,  in  its  own  nature,  probable  that  the 
English  Reformers  would  fix  their  eyes  upon  thQ 
splendid  system  in  Germany,  rather  than  upon  the 
feeble  and  unimportant  establishment  at  Geneva. 

But  let  us  pass  from  this  general  reasoning  to 
such  as  is  grounded  on  specific  facts. 

2.  Cranmer,  it  is  well  known,  was  the  chief 
53 


4l8  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XI. 

conductor  of  the  English  Reformation.  It  is  of 
no  little  importance,  therefore,  in  the  considera- 
tion of  the  question  before  us,  to  ascertain  what 
his  predilections  were.  Now  Cranmer  formed  an 
early  acquaintance  with  the  Reformers  of  Ger- 
many, and  he  kept  up  a  constant  correspondence 
with  them  for  a  course  of  years.*  He  was  particu^ 
larly  intimate  with  the  great  and  excellent  Melanc- 
thon.  The  correspondence  between  these  two  em- 
inent Refomiers  began  early,  and  continued  long* 
We  find  a  letter  from  Melancthon  to  Cranmer,  under 
date  of  the  year  1535,  in  which  he  submits  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Archbishop,  a  work  which  he  had 
prepared  for  the  press,  with  ^  dedication  to  king 
Henry.f  Cranmer  seems,  too,  to  have  consulted 
Melancthon  in  every  case  of  importance  con- 
nected with  the  Reformation  of  the  Church.  Ther©^ 
is  a  letter  from  the  Archbishop  to  Melancthon, 
dated  May,  1548,  in  which  he  asks  his  opinion  oh 
the  subject  of  a  public  creed.  This  was  precisely 
the  time  wh^  the  English  Liturgy  was  preparing. 
Melancthon,  in  his  reply,  urged  Cranmer  to  draw 
up  a  Confession  that  should  embrace  the  whole 
Protestant  world-t  In  the  same  year  we  find  Me- 
lancthon anxiously  entreating  the  ArcHbishop  to 
beware  of  those  stoical  disputations,  by  which,  at 
<jn  early  period,  the'Lutheran  Reformers  had  been 
so  much  disturbed.  Now,  where  is  the  proof  of 
intimacy  between  Cranmer  and  Calvin?  The  cor- 
respondence between  them  was  extremely  short, 

♦  Sp-  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p  285—288. 

t  BpistoUrum  Lihri  Lend,  p,  521.  *  Ibid.  Epist.  66.  lib,  f 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  WR.  RODGERS.  419 

There  is  no  evidence  of  more  than  three  or  four 
letters  having  been  written  by  Calvin  to  Crannier; 
and  two  of  these  were  in  reply  to  that  general  let- 
ter which  the  Archbishop  addressed  to  him,  in 
reference  to  the  plan,  suggested  by  Melancthon, 
of  a  Confession  of  Faith  for  all  Protestants.  This 
letter  to  Calvin,  it  will  be  recollected  too,  \tas 
prior  to  the  developement  of  his  peculiar  system 
on  the  subject  of  the  divine  decrees;  whereas  the 
intimate  correspondence  between  Cranmer  and 
Melancthon,  continued  after  the  latter  had  avowed 
those  opinions,  on  the  subject  of  grace  and  free- 
will, which  led  him  to  brand  Calvin  with  the  most 
opprobrious  epithets,  and  to  erase,  indignantly,  his 
doctrine  of  election  from  a  public  document. 

3.  But  the  bias  of  the  English  Reformers  to- 
wards the  Lutheran  model  will  still  more  strikingly 
appear  from  the  repeated  and  earnest  efforts  which 
were  made  to  induce  Melancthon  to  settle  in  Eng- 
land. There  is  evidence  of  an  iavitation  hav- 
ing been  given  to  him  to  this  effect,  even  in  the 
year  1534;  for,  in  a  letter  written  in  that  year,  he 
says,  "  I  am  just  now  called  to  England  by  other 
letters."*  And  in  the  ensuing  year,  he  informs 
his  correspondent: — "  I  am  again  invited,  and  in- 
deed importuned,  not  only  by  letters,  but  also  by 
embassies  from  England."t  He  was  solicited  a 
third  time  in  the  year  1538;  when  Henry  wrote 
an  urgent  letter  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  on  the 
subject.!      Nor   was    the    wish   of   the    English 

•  Bpist.  p.  717.  t  Epist.  Libri  Londini,  p.  733. 

^  Seckendbrf  Histor,  l.tither.  lib.  in. 


?^ 


420  EXAMINATION  OF  DK.  MILLEU'S         LET.  XI. 

Reformers  less  strong  in  the  ensuing  reign.  In 
the  year  1549,  Latimer,  in  a  sermon  preached 
before  the  King,  speaks  thus— '^  1  heard  say, 
Master  Melancthon,  that  great  clark,  should 
come  hither.  I  would  wish  him,  and  such  as  he 
is,  to  have  two  hundred  pound  a  year.  The  King 
shouhl  never  want  it  in  his  coffers  at  the  year's 
end."  In  a  letter  to  J.  Camerarius,  dated  May, 
1550,  Melancthon  says — "  1  am  once  more  invited 
to  England;''*  and  again,  to  the  same  person,  im- 
mediately before  the  death  of  Edward,  in  1553 — 
"  I  am  invited  to  England  by  letters  from  the  King, 
which  were  written  in  the  month  of  May."t  In 
addition  to  all  this,  let  it  be  mentioned,  that  the 
theological  professorship  at  Cambridge  was  kept 
open  for  Melancthon  from  February,  1551,  to  the 
spring  of  1553;  the  precise  period  during  which 
the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  were  in 
preparation. 

Now,  was  application  made  to  Calvin  to  settle 
in  England  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in  the  work 
of  Reformation  ?  No.  Was  his  advice  ever  asked 
in  the  business  ?  No.  licylin,  indeed,  tells  us 
thai  he  tendered  his  assistance  to  Cranmer,  but 
that  the  Archbishop,  knowing  the  man,  declined 
the  offer.J  The  leller  from  Cranmer  to  Calvin, 
dated  1551,  which  has  been  so  much  relied  upon, 
related  simply  to  the  ])roject  of  a  general  standard 
of  faith  for  Protestants ;  it  was,  indeed,  a  circular 

•  Epist.  Eondin.  p.  915.  lib.  iv.  epist   780. 
f  HjkI.  p.  930    iil).  iv.  cpibl.  813. 

*  History  of  the  Ueformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  p  .<55. 


LET.  XI  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  421 

Jcitter  written  to  a  number  of  eminent  foreign  Re- 
formers, in  pursuance  of  the  advice  of  Melancthon, 
already  mentioned,  and  written,  too,  before  Calvin 
had  advanced  those  opinions,  rchitive  to  the  divine 
decrees,  which  produced  so  violent  a  rupture,  the 
moment  they  were  advanced,  even  in  Geneva 
itself. 

What  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  all  these 
facts?     That  there  was  no  tendency  in  the   Re- 
formers of  the  Church  of  England   to  those  pe- 
culiar dogmas,  which  constitute  what  is  now  called 
the  system  of  Calvinism.   The  opinions  of  Melanc- 
thon, when  he  was  so  urgently  and  perseveringly 
solicited  to  settle  in  England,  were  perfectly  well 
known.     Speculations  on   the  subject  of  indivi- 
dual predestination  he  held  in  utter  abhorrence. 
He  maintained   both  the  universality  and  the  de- 
fectihility  of  grace.     So  far  from  believing  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  Saints,  he  ex- 
pressly asserted,   that   the   Saints   may  fall  from 
grace  both  totally  and  finally,*     The  theological 
professorship  of  Cambridge  was  still  kept  open  for 
his  acceptance,  even  after  he  had  warned  Cran- 
mer  to  beware  of  those  stoical  doctrines  which  he 
imputed   to   Calvin,   and   for  which    he   did   not 
hesitate  to  characterize  him  as  the  Zeno  of  his 
time.t 


*  This  has  been  already  proved  by  distinct  references  to  the  works 
of  Melancthon  and  Lutlier. 

f  The  theoloj^ical  professorship  was  kept  open  for  Melancthon  froro 
1551  to  1553,  and  his  letter  to  Cranmer,  relative  to  the  importance  of 
gnardmj^  ag:ainst  the  doctrine  of  n  stoical  fate,  was  written  in  1548, 


422  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XI, 

But  we  have  evidence  of  a  much  more  decisive 
character  on  this  subject; — evidence  which  must 
place  the  question  before  us,  with  all  dispassionate 
inquirers,  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  dispute. 

4.  In  the  whole  progress  of  the  Reformation  of 
the  Church  of  England,  we  find  great  reference  to 
Lutheran  standards,  and  to  the  works  of  Lutheran 
authors.  Jt  will  conduce  to  a  clearer  view  of  the 
subject  to  divide  the  English  Reformation  into  se- 
veral distinct  periods: — L  From  its  commence- 
ment to  the  year  1551,  when  Cranmer  was  di- 
rected to  draw  up  a  book  of  Articles.  2.  The  pe- 
riod during  which  the  Articles  in  question  wer6 
digested  and  prepared.  3.  The  re-organization  of 
the  Church  upon  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  to  the 
throne. 

In  the  year  1536  the  fir^it  public  attempt  at  a  re- 
formation of  religious  opinion  was  made  in  Eng- 
land. A  code  of  doctrine  was  then  set  forlhy 
entitled,  "  Articles  devised  by  the  King's  High- 
ness Majesty,  to  stablish  Christian  quietness  and 
unity  among  us,  and  to  avoid  contentious  opinions; 
which  Articles  be  also  approved  by  the  consent 
and  determination  of  the  whole  Clergy  of  thi^ 
realm." 

Now,  it  is  remarkable  that  this  measure  was 
adopted  in  compliance  with  the  advice  given  by 
Melancthon,  in  a  letter  to  King  Henry,  in  the 
preceding  year — "  Nor  do  I  doubt  but  that  these 

In  the  year  1552,  Melancthon  styled  Calvin  Zeno,  m  letters  to  his  cor- 
retpontlents,  and  struck  the  article,  De  Electione,  out  of  the  Form  of 
Concord  between  the  Cliurches  of  Zurich  and  Genera. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  488 

religious  controversies  might  be  softened,  if  your 
Royal  Majesty  would  exert  your  authority  to  in- 
cline other  Kings  to  moderation,  as  well  as  deli- 
berate with  learned  men  concerning  the  true  kind 
of  doctrine.  For  there  is  not  the  least  doubt  that 
certain  abuses,  too  flagrant  to  be  concealed,  have 
crept  into  the  Church;  neither  have  Kings  taken 
proper  care  that  there  should  be  set  forth  a  simple 

and  explicit  form  of  doctrine D.  Antonius,  (Dr. 

Barnes,  then  Henry's  ambassador  in  Germany, 
and  afterwards  a  martyr)  hath  discoursed  with  us 
concerning  articles  of  faith,  with  the  utmost  confi- 
dence and  attention,  concerning  which  I  have 
given  him,  at  full  length,  my  opinion  in  writing."" 
The  articles  drawn  up  in  consequence  of  this 
letter,  were  Lutheran  in  their  character.  On  the 
important  subject  of  justification,  the  very  lan- 
guage of  Melancthon  was  literally  translated — 
"  The  word  justification  signifieth  remission  of  our 
sins,  and  our  acceptation  or  reconciliation  into  the 
grace  and  favour  of  God."t  Now  mark  the  lan- 
guage of  Melancthon  on  this  subject — "  Justifica- 
tio  significat  remissionem  peccatorum,  et  reconci- 
liationem,  seu  acceptationem  personae  ad  vitam 

8eternam."t 

In  the  year  1537,  was  published  what  is  called 
the  Bishops'  Book,  as  having  .been  composed 
chiefly  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Church;  and  in  the^ 
year  1543,  the  King's  Book,  or,  "  A  necessary 
Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man." 


Epist.Londin.  p.  11.  f  Articles  drawn  up  in  1536. 

^  Loci  Thtolojfici  de  €»Mtia  et  ^nstific. 


124  CXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MlLLER^S         LET.  Xf* 

These  works  are  admitted  to  hold  a  language,  on 
the  subjects  of  redemption,  grace,  free-will,  funda- 
mentally different  from  the  language  of  Calvin.  On 
the  contrary,  they  will  be  found,  upon  minute  exa- 
mination, says  Dr.  Laurence,  to  have  adopted  "  not 
only  the  ideas,  but  sometimes  the  very  language  of 
the  Lutherans."*     Now,  where  are  we  to  look  for 
the  reformed  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 
held  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  ?   Undoubtedly  to 
the  work  published  in  1543,  entitled,  "  Necessary 
Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man  ;"  a 
work  full,  as  we  have  seen,  of  Lutheran  ideas,  and 
even  of  Lutheran  language.     It  is  true,  this  work 
contains   a    good    deal    of   Romish   superstition. 
The  progress  from  error  to  truth  was  gradual.  But, 
on  the  subjects  connected  with  the    CalviniStic 
controversy,  precisely  the  same  language  was  held 
during   the    ensuing   reign;   the   doctrine  of  the 
Church  under  Henry  VIII.  continued  to  be  her 
doctrine  under  Edward  VI.     In  reference  to  tran 
substantiation,  and  some  other  popish  errors,  the 
English  Reformers  changed  their   opinions;   but 
their  language  relative  to  redemption,  predestina- 
tion, grace,  and  free-will,  was  uniform  from  the 
very  earliest  stages  of  the  Reformation  to  its  com- 
plete settlement  in  the  year  1553. 

This  brings  ue  to  the  second  period — that  in 
which  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
finally  prepared  and  adopted.    And  here  the  refer- 

•  It  would  occupy  too  much  space  to  give  the  nccess.ary  extracts. 
1  iicy  may  be  seen  in  Ur.  Laurence's  J^ampton  Lectures ;  particularly  jh 
nutc  17  to  strmon  fifth. 


LET.  XI.  LIFt  OF  L)R.  RODGERS.  425 

ence  to  Lutheran  authorities  was  ample  and  deci- 
sive. Cranmer  appears  to  have  kept  his  eye  stea- 
dily fixed  upon  the  noble  Confession  of  Augsburo:, 
the  production  of  Mehmcthon  ;  whom  he  admired 
and  vahied  more  than  any  of  the  Reformers.  Some 
of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  has 
been  already  shown,*  were  copied,  almost  lite- 
rally, from  the  Confession  in  question;  while,  in 
others,  we  meet  with  the  doctrine  of  that  Confes- 
sion, if  not  its  precise  language.! 

*  See  Letter  viii.  of  this  work. 

•j-  It  is  asserted  in  the  Christian  Observer, t  tliat  "  the  qualifying 
clause  of  the  seventeenth  Article  is  nearly  copied  from  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes ;"  and  that  "  the  latter  part  of  the  clause  is  a  literal  translation  of 
that  Reformer's  caution  ag-ainst  the  abuse  of  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion." But  no  authority  is  g-ive»  fortius  assertion;  it  is  rested  simply  on 
a  comparison  of  the  lanj^uage  of  two  passages  of  Calvin's  Institutes 
with  the  Englisli  translation  of  the  seventeenth  Article.  Let  us  put 
down  tog-ether  the  words  of  the  Latin  Article,  and  tlie  passages  cited 
from  Calvin  by  the  Christian  Observer,  and  we  sliall  find  such  a  differ- 
ence between  them,  as  repels,  instead  of  leading  to,  the  conclusion, 
that  the  one  was  copied  from  the  other. 

"  Deinde  promissiones  divinas  sic  amplecti  opportet,  ut  nobis  in  sa« 
oris  Uteris  ^eneraHter  propositae  sunt,  et  Dei  voluntas  in  nostris  ac- 
tionibus  ea  sequnda  est,  quam  in  vcrbo  Dei  habemus  dlserte  revelatam.'* 
Latin  Article. 

"  Suis  promissionlbus  (Dens)  vult  nos  esse  oontentos  neque  alibi 
quxrere  an  futurus  sit  nobis  exorabilis."§  "  Proinde  in  rebus  agendis 
eaest  nobis  perspicienli  Dei  voluntas  quam  verbo  suo  declarat."|j 

Tlie  whole  complexion  of  the  seventeenth  Article  differs,  funda- 
mentally, from  the  laugtiage  of  Calvin's  Institutes.  The  Article  is  si- 
lent on  the  subject  of  reprobation.  Put  Calvin  sets  fjrlh  the  decree  of 
reprobation  just  as  explicitly  as  the  decree  of  election;  asserting  that 
the  one  cannot  possibly  stand  without  the  other.  With  Calvin,  the 
decree  of  God  is,  '*  de  unoquoque  homine ,"  it  fixes  the  fate  of  each 
individual  person.lf    But  mark  the  collective  character  of  the  language 

A  Vol.  Hi.  p.  438.  §  Instiii.  '24.  5.  |j  Ibiil  i.  17.  5. 

^  "  Prseilestinationem  vocamus  cteniuni  Dei  tlocret.ini,  quo  apud  se  consti- 
tutum  habuit,  quid  de  unociuoque  homine  fieri  vellct."  Just.  lib.  Hi.  cap.  2l» 
sect.  5. 

54 


426  EXAMINATION  OP  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

If  we  pass  to  the  third  period — that  of  the  re- 
organization of  the  Church  under  Elizabeth— we 


used  by  our  Church.  Predestination  she  considers  as  relating  to  "those 
whom  God  hath  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind."—"  Quos  elegit  ex 
liominum  genere."  Language  of  this  kind  frequently  occurs  in  the 
writings  of  Melancthon  and  Luther ;— never  in  those  of  Calvin.  We 
can  be  at  no  loss,  therefore,  to  determine  with  whom  the  English  Re- 
formers symbolized  on  this  important  subject.  Let  me  present  you 
with  a  few  passages  from  the  works  of  Melancthon,  and  beg  you  to 
compare    them   with  the  Latin  Article   of  the  Church  of  England, 

quoted  in  the  preceding  page.     "  Quod  Pater  xternus in  genere 

humano elegerit  sibi  Ecclesiam."  Loci  Theoligici,  Art.  de  Deo,  p.  22. 

"  Recte  dicitur  causam  election  is  esse  misericordiam  in  voluntate  Dei, 
qui  non  \ailt  perire  totum  genus  humanurn,  sed  propter  Filiian  coUigit  et 
servat  Ecclesiain, . . .  Sed  tamen  in  accipiente  concurrere  oportet  appre- 
hensionem  promissionis,  seu  agnitionem  Christi.  Nam  idea  electi  sumus, 
quia  efficinmr  membra  Christi."  Ibid.  p.  473.  And  again,  in  a  passage  al- 
ready alluded  to  :  "  Revelavit  arcanum  decretion  de  remissione  pecca- 
torum  propter  Filium,  et  coUigit  sibi  ex  tarn  corrupta  massa  humani 
generis  Ecclesiam."     Disput.  Lnth.  Opera,  vol.  ii.  p.  505. 

"  Et  si  alia  subtiliter  de  electione  disputari  fortasse  possunt,  tamen 
prodest  piis  tenere,  quod  promissio  sit  universalis.  Nee  debemus  de 
voluntate  Dei  aliter  judicare,  quam  juxta  verbum  revelatnm,  et  scire 

debemus,  quod  Deus  prseceperit,  ut  credamus Nos  igitur  simpli- 

citer  interpretamur  banc  sententiam  universalitery  *  Deus  vult  omnes  ho- 
mines salvos  fieri,'  scilicet,  quod  ad  ipsius  voluntatem  attinet"  Opera, 
vol.  iv.  p.  498,  499.  "  Hxc  universalia  dicta  de  promissione  teneamus, 
et  opponamui  tentationi  de  particularitatCy  cum  disputant  mentes,  an 
iint  in  numero  electorum  ?  Ab  hac  disputatione  ad  revelatam  Dei  vo- 
luntatem in  Evangelio  deducamur,  et  credamus  cxpresso  verbo  Dei,  et 
nos  in  universalem  promissionem  includamus,  sciamus  earn  ad  nos  quo- 
que  pertinere,  sciamui  Filium  Dei  veracem  nuncium  esse,  per  quem 
prolata  est  promissio  ex  sinu  xterni  Patris,  nee  Jingamus  de  eadem  re 
contradictorias  voluntatcs  in  Deo,  quia  Deus  verax  est.  Hanc  consola- 
tionem  sumptam  ex  verbo  espresso  teneamus,  ncc  ipsos  inextricubi/ibut 
labyrintlus  disputationum  implicemus,  qua  Jidem  evertunt."  Vol.  iv.  p. 
80.     "  Item.  Rom.  viii.  *  Quos  elegit,  hos  et  vocavil.'  Dulcem,  aalnta- 

rem,    et  multiplicem  sonsolationem   continet   hxc    setentia Secunda 

consolatio  est,  quod  monet  hxc  sententia  non  removendum  esse  vocati- 
onem  a  consilio  election  is.  Elegit  Deus,  qui  vocarc  nos  ad  Filii  agni- 
lioncm  dt$revitf  et  vult  gencri  humam  siuun  voluntatem  et  sua  benefinm 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODOERB.  427 

find    the    same   reference   to   Lutheran   authori- 
ties.    The  Articles,  which  had  been  established  iu 
the  reign  of  Edward,  were  adopted,  in  general, 
ivord  for  word ;  and  the  few  additions,  which  were 
made,  were  borrowed,  not  from  aCalvinistic  quar- 
ter, but  from  the  Lutheran  Confession  of  Wirtera- 
bergh.     The  original  document  itself  is  still  in 
existence;    exhibiting  the   emendations   of   Ed- 
ward's Articles,  apparently  in  the  hand-writing  of 
Archbishop  Parker  himself,  with  the  autographs 
of  the  respective  members  of  the  convocation. 
This  instrument,  says  Dr.  Laurence,  "  is  nothing 
more  than  an  interlined  and  amended  copy  of  the 
formulary  which  had  been  adopted  in  the  preced- 
ing reign."* 

We  see,  then,  the  state  of  things  in  England 
in  the  year    1562.     In  the  re-modelling  of  the 


innotescere.    Approbat  igitur  et  digit  obtemperantes  vocationi."    Zo^t 
Theolog.  de  Prxdest.  p.  475.     See  also  p.  473. 

Mark  the  striking  resemblance  between  the  language  of  the  seven- 
leenth  Article,  relative  to  the  danger  of  viewing  the  predestination  bf 
God  as  fixing  the  fate  of  individuals,  and  tliat  held  by  Luther.  "  Unde 
illos,"  says  the  article,  "  diabolus  protrudit,  vel  in  desperationein,  vel 
in  ceque  perniciosam  impurissimx  vitx  securitatem."  On  the  same  subject 
Luther  thus  writes — "  E  contra  ii,  qui  sentiunt  Dei  voluntatem  ncMi 
esse,  ut  bmnes  salventur,  ant  in  desperatioiiem  ruunt,  ant  in  ^ecurissimam 
impietatem  dissolvuntur.'"     P^ostill.  Domest.  p.  58. 

The  following  language  of  Bucer,  in  explaining  Melancthon's  doc- 
trine, harmonizes  perfectly  with  our  seventeenth  Article — •*  Qui  de 
hoc  (viz.  de  predestinatione)  dubitat,  nee  vocatum  se  et  justificatum 
esse  credere  poterit,  hoc  est,  nequit  esse  Christian'is.  Presumendum 
igitur,  ut  principium  fidei,  nos  omnes  a  Deo  esse  prje>citos,  prxfinitos, 
separates  a  reliquis,  et  selectos  in  hec,  ut  eternum  servemur,  Aocque 
propositum  Dei  mutari  non  posse."  Enarrat.  m  JittmaTif  p.  360.  Sre 
Laur€nce*s  Bampton  Lecturesy  p.  428 — 435. 

*  IJampton  Lectures,  p.  41,  332. 


428  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's        LET.  XI. 

Church  at  that  period,  no  reference  was  had  to 
Calvin  or  his  doctrine,  but  to  Lutheran  authori- 
ties.    The  system  originally  established  by  Cran- 
nier,  in  coinpiling  which  he  had  borroAved  very 
largely  from  the   Lutheran  Confession  of   Augs- 
burir,  was  restored,  with  very  few  and  immaterial 
alterations.     Articles  were  adopted  which  do  not 
sanction  a  single  peculiarity  of  Calvinism,  and  in 
which  some  of  its  most  important  peculiarities  are 
expressly  contradicted ;  so  much  so  that  at  a  later 
period,  when   Calvinism  became  more  powerful, 
its  advocates  laboured  strenuously  to  alter  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Articles,  as  adopted  in  1562,  and  to 
introduce  additional  Articles  setting  forth  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  their  favourite  creed.     In 
fact,    Calvinism   did  not  become    formidal;le  in 
England  until  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth.     The  accurate  historian,   Strype,  ex- 
pressly tells  us  that  "  Calvin's  way  of  explaining 
the  divine  decrees  was  not  entertained  by  many 
learned  men  in  the  university  of  Cambridge  be- 
fore the  year  15'J5."*     Originally  introduced  from 
Geneva  by  the  English  Refugees  upon  their  re- 
turn to  their  native  country,  it  was  zealously  pro- 
pagated by  Cartwright  while  Margaret  Professor 
01  Divinity  at  Cam  ridge,  and  its  growth  greatly 
cherished    and   promoted   there,    by   the    learned 
"Whitaker.     At  length,  it  succeeded  so  far  as  to 
become    the   prevailing  doctrine   at   Cambridge. 
But  what  v\us  the  consequence  ?     No  sooner  did 

•  Life  of  Whitgift,  p.  ^35. 


LET.  Xr.  LIFE  OF  DR.   RODfiERS.  429 

the  Calvinisis  at  Cambridge  perceive  tlieir  stren2:tli, 
than  they  began  to  show  their  dissatisractiori  with 
the  standards  of  the  Cliurch  of  England,  by  draw- 
ing up  the  Lambeth  Articles,  and  endeavouring  to 
get  them   established  by  public  autiiority.     Not 
lono;  after  was  held  the  celebrated  conference  at 
Hampton  Court,  where  another  unsuccessful  at- 
tempt was  made  by  the  Calvinists  to  procure  the 
adoption  of  the    Lambelh  Articles.     Proceeding 
forward  a  few  years  we  come  to  the  period  of  the 
famous  Synod  of  Dort.     The   state   of  opinion 
among  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  at 
this  time,  will  appear  from  the  following  passage 
from  Mosheim.     "  Scarcely  had  the  British   di- 
vines returned  from  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  given 
an  account  of  the  laws  that  had  been  enacted, 
and  the  doctrines  that  had  been  established,  by 
that  famous  Assembly,  than   the  King,  together 
with  the  greatest  part  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy, 
discovered,  in  the  strongest  terms,  their  disFike  of 
these  proceedings,  and  judged  the  sentiments  of 
Arminius,  relating  to  the  divine  decrees,  prefera- 
ble to  those  of  Gomarus  and  Calvin."* 

5.  I  proceed  to  notice,  distinctly,  a  very  import- 
ant fact  on  this  subject;  a  fact,  indeed,  which  is, 
of  itself,  sufficient  to  determine  the  controversy. 

Cranmer  was  ordered  to  draw  up  a  book  of  Ar- 
ticles in  the  year  1551.  The  book  was  compiled 
and  laid  before  the  Bishops  of  the  different  dio- 
cesses  in  the  same  year,  and  was  finally  published, 

*  Ecclesiasticra  History,  vol.  v,  p.  372,  375, 


430  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XI, 

with  authority,  early  in  the  year  1553.  Now  the 
peciiUar  opinions  of  Calvin  were  not  promulged 
until  late  in  the  year  1551,  when  he  was  attacked 
in  open  Church  by  Bolsec,  for  preaching  the  doc- 
trine of  absolute  decrees.  His  first  tract  on  the 
subject  of  Predestination  was  not  pubHshed  until 
the  year  1552.*  Thus  it  appears,  from  a  compa- 
rison of  dates,  that  the  peculiar  system  of  Calvin 
could  not  possibly  have  had  influence  upon  the 
Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  the  Arti- 
cles of  that  Church  having  been  drawn  up  before 
the  system  in  question  had  been  communicated  to 
the  world. 

6.  The  circumstances,  attending  the  preparation 
of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  furnish 
additional  evidence  that  her  Reformers  were  under 
a  Lutheran,  rather  than  a  Calvinistic  biass.  In 
purifying  the  offices  of  the  Church,  they  followed, 
in  a  great  degree,  a  Liturgy  that  had  been  re- 
cently prepared  by  Melancthon  and  Bucer  for  the 
Archbishoprick  of  Cologne.  Where  the  forms  of 
the  Enghsh  Liturgy  vary  from  the  ancient  forms, 
they  are  generally  fashioned  after  those  which 
were  used,  as  above  mentioned,  in  the  Arch- 
bishoprick of  Cologne  \  indeed,  they  are  often  lite- 
ral translations  from  them.f  Calvin,  while  set- 
tled at  Strasburg,  used,  in  public  worship,  a  li- 
turgy of  his  own  composition :  after  translating  it 
into  Latin,  and  introducing  some  alterations,  he 

•  It  has  been  shown,  in  tliis  letter,  that  the  Institutes  of  Calvin,  as 
first  published,  could  not  have  contained  his  predestinarian  scheme. 
t  Sec  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  197 — 801,  282,  283. 


LET.  XI.  LIF15  OF  DR.  R0D6BRS.  431 

established  it  as  the  public  form  of  the  Church  of 
Geneva  in  the  year  1545.  The  EngHsh  Liturgj 
first  appeared  in  1548.  Now  it  is  to  be  particu- 
larly observed,  that  the  EngHsh  Liturgy  of  1548^ 
bears  no  resemblance  whatever  to  the  prochiction 
of  Calvin ;  and  we  have  just  seen  that  it  was  in  a 
great  measure  derived  from  the  Liturgy  of  Cologne, 
prepared  by  Melancthon.  But  further — A  new 
translation  of  the  work  of  Calvin,  with  alterations 
and  additions,  was  made  in  the  year  1551,  by 
Valerandus  PoUanus,  who  then  resided  in  Eng- 
land. The  English  Liturgy  was  revised  and  re- 
published in  1552;  and  it  is  a  very  important  fact 
that  many  of  the  additions  and  alterations,  then 
introduced,  were  derived,  or,  at  least,  the  hint  of 
them  was  taken,  from  the  work  of  Pollanus.  For 
example,  the  Introductory  Sentences,  Exhortation, 
Confession,  and  Absolution  were  added  to  the 
English  Liturgy  at  the  revision,  in  1552;  as  were 
also  the  Ten  Commandments,  with  the  responses 
subjoined  to  them,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Com- 
munion Service.  All  this  was  suggested  by  the 
translation  of  Pollanus,  not  by  that  of  Calvin* 
for  the  decalogue  and  an  office  of  absolution  are 
contained  in  the  former,  and  not  in  the  latter. 
The  circumstances  just  detailed  prove  either  that 
the  English  Reformers  were  unacquainted  with 
the  work  of  Calvin,  or  that  they  did  not  think  it 
a  fit  subject  of  imitation.* 

7.  InthePteformation  of  the  Church  of  England 

*  See  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  197,  !98,  199,  ^S"^. 


132  EXAMINATION  OF  Dli.  MILLER's         LET.  Xb 

under  Edward,  an  article  was  adopted,  asserting 
the  descent  of  Christ,  into  Hell.  Now  this  is  a 
tenet  against  which  Calvin  had  declared  with 
great  violence;  being  so  enraged  with  his  friend 
Castellio  for  embracing  it  as  even  to  banish  him 
from  Geneva.* 

8.  The  English  Reformers  differed  materially 
from  Calvin  as  to  the  ground  on  which  they  rested 
the  canon  of  Scripture. 

The  Church  of  Rome  referred  the  question  of 
the  canonicalness  or  uncanonicalness  of  any  book, 
not  simply  to  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  but  to 
her  decisive  authority.  Calvin  rejected  this  crite- 
rion altogether,  and  substituted  for  it  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit.  For,  in  reference  to  the 
question — who  shall  determine  whether  this  or 
that  book  is  to  be  received — he  thus  writes — "  Be- 
cause religion,  with  profane  man,  is  seen  to  stand 
only  in  opinion;  least  they  should  believe  fool- 


*  The  followinj^  language  of  Ecza  will  show  that  he  was  far  Irom 
considering  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  Ergland  as  fashioned 
upon  a  Calvinistic  model. 

"  As  to  what  regards  tlie  English  Reformation,  when  you  say  that 
it  was  established  with  the  advice,  and  according  to  the  mind  of  Bucer, 
you  do  a  great  injury  to  this  excellent  man,  who,  when  he  was  in  that 
kingdom,  at  the  beginning  of  the  evangelical  reformation  there,  deeply 
lamented  that  a  greater  degree  of  rationality  in  discipline  and  purity 
of  rites  had  not  been  observed  in  organizing  the  Church.  In  certain 
letters  to  a  very  dear  friend  in  Canterburj',  on  the  12th  Jan.  1550,  he 
thus  writes — As  to  what  you  say  with  respect  to  the  purity  of  the  rites, 

know  that  no  foreigner  here  is  consulted  about  these  matters "  He, 

(Bucer)  a  little  before  his  d#ath,  wrote  these  things,  that  he  by  no 
means  acquiesced  in  the  English  form,  of  which  you  falsely  and  impu- 
<kntly  make  him  the  author."     fiez<t  Tractationes  Theolo^ictt,  vol.  a. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  43S 

ishly  or  lig:iitly,  they  desire  and  demand  to  be 
proved  to  them  by  reason,  that  Mosea  and  the 
Prophets  spoke  with  divine  authority.  But  1  an- 
swer that  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  better  than 
any  reason.  For  as  God  alone  is  a  sufilciont  wit'» 
ness  of  himself  in  his  word;  so  likewise,  the  word 
will  not  find  faith  in  the  hearts  of  men,  before  it 
is  signed  to  them  by  the  inward  testimony  of  th« 
Spirit." 

The  same  test  is  adopted  in  the  Belgic  and 
Westminister  Confessions,  but  in  no  Confession 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  nor  in  any  of  the  writ- 
ings of  her  great  Reformers.  If  the  Lutheran 
Church  had  adopted  such  a  test,  she  would  hav© 
inserted  it,  of  course,  in  the  Augsburg  Confession; 
and  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  their  decrees  relative 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  would  not  have  failed  to 
point  it  out  as  an  heretical  innovation. 

The  English  Reformers,  with  their  usual  mo- 
deration and  good  sense,  avoided  the  different  ex- 
tremes on  this  subject.  They  declared  the  Church 
to  be  "  a  witness  and  a  keeper  of  Holy  Writ;" 
thus  resting  the  canon  of  Scripture  neither  on  the 
mere  authority  of  the  Church  on  the  one  hand, 
nor  on  the  simple  testimony  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
other. 

In  this  fundamental  point,  then,  the  Church 
of  England  agrees  with  the  Lutherans,  while  she 
totally  differs  from  Calvin ; — which  is  a  very  strong 
circumstance  to  show  that  she  did  not  propose 
Calvin  as  her  doctrinal  guide  in  the  work  of  Re* 
formation.     For,  "  that  the  said  Church,"  to  use 

55 


434  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XL 

the  language  of  Bishop  White,  "  in  framing  her 
Articles,  should  take  this  Reformer  for  her  guide 
on  predestination  and  its  kindred  points ;  and  yet 
run  so  ^vide  of  him  as  to  the  source  from  which  alone 
light  is  to  be  gathered  concerning  these  matters 
and  all  others,  seems  altogether  improbable."* 

9.  The  very  great  respect  paid  by  the  English 
Rerformcrs  to  the  Paraphrase  of  Erasmus,  is,  of 
itself,  sufficient  to  decide  the  question  relative 
to  the  supposed  tendency  of  those  Reformers  to- 
ward the  pecuHar  tenets  of  Calvinism.  By  a 
royal  injunction,  issued  in  the  beginning  of  Ed- 
ward's reign,  the  Paraphrase  of  the  Gospel  was 
ordered  to  be  placed  in  every  parish  Church,  that 
the  people  might  have  an  opportunity  of  reading 
it;  while  another  injunction  directed  that  the  whole 
Paraphrase  should  be  in  the  hands  of  all  the  clergy 
below  the  station  of  Bachelors  in  Divinity,  and 
that  they  should,  moreover,  be  examined  in  it  by 
the  Bishops.  This  is  a  circumstance  the  force  of 
which  can  never  be  eluded.f  It  is  positively  ri- 
diculous, in  the  face  of  such  a  fact,  to  talk  of  the 
Calvinism  of  the  English  Reformers. 

10.  The  Church  of  England  varies  more  fronr 

*  churchman's  Magazine,  new  series,  vol.  iii.  p.  20,  21. 
f  The  attention  paid  to  the  Paraphrase  of  Erasmus  was  distinctly 
noticed  in  the  eighth  Letter  of  tliis  work ;  but,  in  an  enumeration  of 
circumstances  which  prove  that  the  English  Reformers  were  under  a 
Lutheran,  and  not  under  a  Culvinistic  biass,  it  seemed  proper  again  to 
mention  the  fact.  1  might  go  on  to  show  the  opinions  of  the  English 
Reformers  from  their  private  writings ;  but,  beside  that  this  has  been- 
sufficiently  done  already,  my  object  now  is  briefly  to  state  some  ot 
tliose  public  circumstances  which  point  out  the  true  character  and  ten- 
dency of  the  English  Keformation. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RO  DGERS.  43^5 

that  of  Geneva,  in  point  of  government  and  disci- 
pline, than  from  any  other  of  the  continental 
Churches.  Now,  what  can  be  more  improbal^le 
than  that  she  should  have  adopted  as  her  model,  in 
point  of  doctrine,  a  Church  from  which  she  dif- 
fers, in  respect  of  government  and  discipline,  so 
fundamentally.  To  be  sure,  a  presumption  of  this 
kind  must  yield  to  positive  evidence  of  a  contrary 
nature;  but  no  such  evidence  has  over  been  pro- 
duced. The  correspondence  between  Calvin  and 
the  English  Reformers  was  very  limited;  it  took 
place,  moreover,  before  he  had  brought  forward 
his  peculiar  theory  of  Predestination.  Besides, 
there  is  evidence  of  much  greater  intimacy  be- 
tween the  English  Reformers  and  Calvin's  great 
opponent — the  wise  Melancthon. 

In  proof  of  your  position  that  the  English  Re- 
formers were  doctrinal  Calvinists,  you  go  on  to 
speak  of  the  very  great  respect  which  was  paid  to 
Calvin's  Institutes,  in  the  universities  of  England, 
"  for  a  number  of  years  during  the  reigns  of  Eli- 
zabeth and  James." 

You  surely  know  that  the  Articles  were  origin- 
ally established  while  Edward  VI.  was  on  the 
throne,  and  were  re-established,  after  the  Marian 
persecution,  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Eli- 
zabeth. Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne  in  the  year 
1568,  and  died  in  the  year  1603.  The  Calvin- 
istic  opinions,  it  is  very  true,  became  somewhat 
powerful  in  the  Church  of  England  toward  the 
dose  of  her  reign;  but  it  would  appear,  from  th^: 


436  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  Xi, 

most  accurate  testimony,  that  they  were  not  em- 
braced  by  many  learned  men  of  the  University  of 
Cambridge  until  so  late  as  the  year  1595,  and  that 
they  were  not  then  understood  to  be  certainly 
the  sense  of  the  Articles  even  by  those  by  whom 
they  were  most  zealously  espoused.* 

How  very  singular,  then^  is  your  mode  of  proof! 
You  assert,  positively,  that  the  leading  Reformers 
of  the  Church  of  England  were  doctrinal  Calvin- 
lets,  and,  by  way  of  proof,  relate  an  event  belong- 
ing to  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth, 
and  to  the  reign  of  her  successor  James, — a  period 
posterior  by  more  than  thirty  years  to  the  re-set- 
tlement of  the  Church  under  Elizabeth,  and  by 
more  than  forty  years  to  its  original  Reformation, 
in  the  reign  of   Edward  VI.     Instead  of  bring- 
ing forward  the  opinions  of  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and 
Latimer,  or  those  of  their  illustrious  successors 
who  re-organized  the  Church  upon  the  death  of 
Queen  Mary,  you   refer   to  a  fact  the  only  ten- 
dency of  which  is  to  throw  light  on  the  opinions 
which  prevailed  in  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
last   years   of   the  sixteenth   century,    when   the 
original  Reformers  under  Edward  were  certainly, 
and  their  successors  in  the  commencement  of  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth  were  probably  in  their  graves. 
But,  to  do  you  justice — "  Let  those  who  deny 
the  Calvinism  of  the  early  Reformers  and  stand- 
ards of  the  Church  of  England,  impartially  con- 
sult Cranmer,  Ridley,  Latimer,  the  Lambeth  Ar- 

*  Sec  Strype*«  Life  of  Whitpift,  p.  435. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  UODOERS.  437 

tides,  the  writings  of  Hall,  Davenant,  and  Hors- 
ley,  and  they  will  perceive,  and  be  ashamed  ol 
their  mistake." 

Well,  Sir,  where  is  your  proof  of  the  Calvinism 
of  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer?  Not  one  word 
have  you,  or  your  guide,  Mr.  Overton,  ventured 
to  produce  from  their  writings.  1  call  upon  you  to 
substantiate  your  assertion.  No,  Sir,  the  English 
Reformers  were  decidedly  opposed  to  the  shock- 
ing principles  of  Calvin.  Not  one  of  those  prin- 
ciples did  they  embrace.  This  has  been  com- 
pletely proved  from  their  private  writings,  and 
from  the  Articles  and  Homilies  which  they  pro- 
vided for  the  government  and  instruction  of  the 
Church.* 

"  The  Lambeth  Articles" — Suppose  Archbishop 
Whitgift  did  declare  these  Articles  to  be  consistent 
with  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England. 
This  would  only  prove  that  the  Archbishop  was 
tinctured  with  Calvinism,  and  disposed  to  see  the 
standards  of  the  Church  through  a  Calvinistic 
medium.  But  you  have  forgotten  to  inform  your 
readers  that  the  Lambeth  Articles  gave  great  of- 
fence, that  they  were  immediately  ordered  to  be 
suppressed,  and  the  Divines  concerned  in  drawing 
them  up  threatened  with  a  premunire.  So  far 
from  proving,  therefore,  that  the  Reformers  in 
1652,  and  1562,  nearly  half  a  century  before, 
were  Calvinists,  the  case  of  the  Lambeth  Articles 
does  not  even  prove  that  the  Church  of  England 
was  Calvinistic  at  the  time  the  Articles  were  com- 

*  See  Letter  viii.  of  this  work, 


i38  EXAMlNATlOiN  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XC. 

posed.  It  is,  indeed,  evident,  from  the  affair  in 
question,  that  Calvinism  prevailed  to  a  considera- 
ble degree  ;  but  it  is  equally  evident  that  it  was 
not  triumphant: — on  the  contrary,  it  appears  to 
have  been  viewed,  both  at  court  and  in  the  uni- 
versity, wilh  deep  disapprobation. 

You  appeal  to  the  writings  of  Hall  and  Dave- 
nant  in  proof  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  early  Re- 
formers of  the  Church  of  England.  Now,  Hall 
and  Davenant,  you  surely  know,  were  not  of  the 
number  of  those  Reformers.  Bishop  Hall  was 
born  in  the  year  1574,  and  Bishop  Davenant  in 
1576;  w^hereas  the  Church  was  settled  under  Ed- 
xvard  in  1552,  and  re-settled  under  Elizabeth  in 
1562. 

But  perhaps  Hall  and  Davenant  have  written 
unanswerable  treatises  to  prove  the  Calvinism  of 
the  English  Reformers  — Nothing  of  the  kind,  I  be- 
lieve, has  ever  been  pretended. 

Admit  that  Hall  and  Davenant  were  Calvinists 
— Does  it  follow  that  the  great  men  who  reformed 
the  Church  of  England  before  Hall  and  Dave- 
nant were  born,  were  Calvinists  also? 

But  Hall  and  Davenant  were  very  far  from 
being  disciples  of  Calvin.  No  other  proof  of  this 
need  be  cited  than  the  part  which  they  acted  in 
their  attendance  upon  the  Synod  of  Dort.  They 
there  publicly  opposed  the  rigid  doctrines  of  Cal- 
vinism;  maintaining  the  universality  of  Redemp- 
tion, and  the  sufficiency  of  grace  for  the  conver- 
sion and  salvation  of  all  men.*     Is  it  not  absurd 

•  Sec  Brandt  and  Collier. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  431H 

to  call  such  men  disciples  of  one  who  held  that 
Christ  died  simply  for  the  elect,  and  that  eilec- 
tual  grace  is  given  to  them  alone? 

Of  the  strong  dislike  of  Bishop  Hall  to  the  vio  . 
lent  opinions  and  language  of  Calvin,  there  is 
abundant  evidence  on  record.  Let  nic  present 
you  with  a  short  specimen — "  When  we  say  Christ 
died  for  mankind,  we  mean  that  Christ  died  for 
the  benefit  of  mankind.  Now  let  this  benefit  be 
distinguished,  and  contentions  hereabouts  will 
cease.  For  if  this  benefit  be  considered  as  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  the  salvation  of  our  souls; 
these  are  benefits  obtainable  only  upon  the  condi- 
tions of  faith  and  repentance:  on  the  one  side,  no 
man  will  say,  that  Christ  died  to  this  end  to  pro- 
cure forgiveness  and  salvation  to  every  one,  whe- 
ther they  believe  and  repent,  or  no.  So,  on  the 
other,  none  will  deny  that  he  died  to  this  end^ 
that  salvation  and  remission  should  redound  to  all 
and  to  every  one,  in  case  .they  should  believe  and 
repent.  For  this  depends  upon  the  sufficiency  of 
that  price  which  our  Saviour  paid  for  the  re- 
demption of  the  ivorld?''^ 

"  If  some  Divines  shall  defend  the  rigid  opi- 
Hions  of  predestination,  surely  the  Church  is  a  col- 
lective body,  so  it  hath  a  tongue  of  her  own, 
speaking  by  the  common  voice  of  her  Synods^ 
ef  her  public  Confessions,  Articles,  Constitutions, 
Catechism,  Liturgies:  what  she  says  in  them 
must  pass  for  her  own;  but  if  any  single  persoE^ 

*  Hail's  Woiks,  val.  ili,  p.  574 


440  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  Xf. 

shall  take  upon  himself,  unauthorized,  to  be  the 
mouth  of  the  Church,  his  insolence  is  justly  cen- 
surable."* 

"  The  secret  things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our 
God,  but  those  things  which  are  revealed  belong 
unto  us,  and  to  our  children  for  ever,  that  we 
may  do  all  the  words  of  this  law :"  wherein  our 
main  care  must  be  not  to  sever  in  our  conceit  the 
end  from  the  means,  and  withal  to  take  the  means 
along  with  us  in  our  way  to  the  end.  It  is  for  the 
heavenly  Angels  to  climb  down  the  ladder  from 
heaven  to  earth:  it  is  for  us  only  to  climb  up  from 
earth  to  heaven.  Bold  men !  what  do  we  begin 
at  God's  eternal  decree  of  our  election,  and  then 
descend  to  the  effects  of  it  in  our  effectual  calling, 
in  our  lively  and  steadfast  faith,  in  our  sad  and 
serious  repentance,  in  our  holy  and  unblameable 
obedience,  in  our  infallible  perseverance.  This 
course  is  saucily  preposterous.  What  have  we 
to  do  to  be  rifling  the  hidden  counsels  of  the  Most 
High:  let  us  look  to  our  own  ways.  We  have  his 
word  for  this,  that  if  we  do  truly  believe,  repent, 
obey,  persevere,  we  shall  be  saved :  that  if  we 
heartily  desire  and  effectually  endeavour,  in  the 
careful  use  of  his  appointed  means,  to  attain  unto 
these  saving  dispositions  of  the  soul,  we  shall  not 
fail  of  the  desired  success.  What  need  we  to 
look  further  than  conscionably  and  cheerfully  to 
do  what  we  are  enjoined,  and  faithfully  and  com- 
fortably to  expect  what  he  hath  promised."! 

•   Hall's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  45. 

I  Bishop  Hall't  Remedy  of  Profanencss,  sect,  xviii.  vol.  iii.  p.  89 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  441 

"  Neither  doth  God  only  admit,  but  lie  invites, 
but  he  entreats,  but  he  iin[)oitunes  men  to  be 
saved.  What  could  he  do  more,  utiless  he  would 
offer  violence  to  the  will,  which  were  no  other 
than  to  destroy  the  best  piece  of  his  own  work- 
manship. It  is  the  way  of  his  decree  and  pro- 
ceedings to  dispose  of  all  things  sweetly,  neither 
is  it  more  against  our  nature  than  his  to  force 
his  own  ends :  and  when  he  sees  that  fair  means 
will  not  prevail  to  win  us  from  death,  he  is  pleased 
feelingly  to  bemoan  it  as  his  own  loss :  "  Why  will 
ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  r"* 

Bishop  Hall  did  not  hesitate  to  distinguish  the 
rigid  notions  of  predestination  maintained  at  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  by  the  title  of  the  "  Belgic  Dis- 
ease;" and  in  speaking  of  the  unsound  and  un- 
scriptural  comments  and  glosses  of  the  strict  fol- 
lowers of  Calvin,  he  contemptuously  represents 
them  as  fished  out  of  the  lake  of  Geneva. 

No,  Sir,  no — The  Reformers  of  the  Church  of 
England  were  very  far  from  being  disciples  of 
Calvin — They  were  very  far  from  establishing 
Calvinistic  Articles  of  Faith.  Instead  of  the  eter- 
nal and  unconditional  ordination  of  some  persons 
to  future  happiness,  and  of  others  to  misery,  they 
taught  a  predestination  of  fallen  man  to  the  mer- 
cies of  God  in  Christ ;  or,  if  individual  destiny 
was  in  their  view,  they  taught  simply  a  predesti- 
nation to  life  founded  on  prescience.  Instead  of 
the  doctrine  of  partial  redemption,  they  set  fortlr 


"  Bishop  Hall's  Remedv  of  Profaneness.  spcf^.  xv  vol,  ill,  p,  9^ 

5G 


442  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  SI. 

the  death  of  Christ  as  a  propitiation  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world.  Fallen  man  they  described 
as  /ar,  not  as  totally  gone  from  original  righteous- 
ness. To  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace,  and 
its  necessary  concomitant,  the  passiveness  of  man 
in  conversion,  and  his  perseverance  in  grace,  not 
from  his  own  will,  but  from  the  immutability  of 
the  decree  of  election,  they  were  utter  strangers; 
for  they  expressly  taught  that  God  worketh  with  us 
and  is  our  continual  help;  and  that  after  falling 
from  grace  we  may,  and  of  course  may  not  arise 
again  and  amend  our  lives.  "  When  the  Reform- 
ers spoke  of  the  ruin  occasioned  by  the  fall,  they 
modestly  hesitated  to  define  the  precise  extent  of 
this  ruin,  and  seemed  still  to  recognize  in  some  of 
those  natural  graces  which  survive  the  fall,  certain 
relics  of  divinity — as  the  noble  fragments  scat- 
tered here  and  there  in  the  '  marble  waste,'  in- 
dicate the  original  majesty  of  the  fallen  city 

When  they  spoke  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  feared  to  paint  man  as  an  inert  mass, 
waiting  for  a  ray  from  Heaven ;  but  urged  all  to 
seek  the  aid  which  all  need.  The  rebellionists, 
on  the  contrary,  presented  a  coarser  exhibition  of 
these  doctrines.  As  to  original  sin,  they  described 
us  not  as  men  but  as  devils.  As  to  faith,  they 
taught  its  necessity,  but  left  accident,  or  human 
corruption,  to  describe  its  effects.  They  taught 
the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit,  but  would  have  men 
merely  wait  in  passive  tranquillity  for  the  impulse 
of  hght."* 

'  British  Review,  vol.  iii.  p.  489,  490. 


L£T.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DK.  KODGERS.  44S 

For  what  purpose  have  you  introduced  the  name 
of  Bishop  liorslcy  ?     We  arc  to  peruse  his  writ- 
ings, it  seems,  and  be  ashamed  to  doubt  of  the 
Calvinism   of  the   Reformers  and  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England.     This  is,  certainly,  very  ex- 
traordinary language.     One  would  naturally  sup- 
pose that  Bishop  Horsley  had  expressly  declared 
the    Articles   of  the   Church   of   England   to   be 
Calvinistic,  and  had  expressly  admitted  the  Cal- 
vinism of   her  Reformers.     But   not   a   word  of 
the  kind   is  to  be   found   in  his  writings.     Was 
Bishop  Horsley  himself  a  Calvinist  ?     It  is  evi- 
dently your  design  to  induce  the  reader  to  sup- 
pose so,  although  you  have  not  thought  proper  to 
assert  it  in  so  many  words.     Until  you  become 
more  explicit,  and  refer  us  to  some  particular  part 
of  his  writings  in  proof,  it  will  be  sufficient  simply 
to  say  that  Bishop  Horsley  was  not  a  Calvinist.* 

In  your  Letters  on  the  Christian  Ministry  you 
assert,  in  very  positive  terms,  that  the  Reformers 
were  all  Presbyterians  in  principle ;  most  of  them 
regarding  Episcopacy  as  a  corruption,  and  all 
viewing  it  as  an  institution  founded  in  human 
policy.  But  you  have  not  ventured  to  go  quite 
so  far  in  the  work  which  we  are  now  examin- 
ing. You  make,  indeed,  the  same  broad  and 
unqualified  declarations  with  respect  to  all  who 
have  in  any  age  protested  against  the  corruptions 
of  the  Romish  Church,  with  the  single  exception 

*  This  can  be  very  easily  and  abundantly  proved. 


444  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

of  the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England.     In 
your  Letters  you  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Cran- 
mor,  Ridley,  liatimer,  Hooper,  were  Presbyterians 
in  principle.     This  assertion  you  have  been  for- 
bearing enough  not  to  repeat;  passing  the  English 
Relc)rfncrs  without  notice.     How  much  more  be- 
coming would  it  have  been,  to  have  confessed  and 
retracted  your  error  I     After  telling  us  that  men 
who  expressly  declared,  in  standards  which  they 
drew  up  for  the   permanent  government  of  the 
Church,  that  Almighty  God,  by  his  Holy  Spirit, 
did  institute  the  three  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons,  were  Presbyterians,  it  is  a  very  poor 
compensation  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  candour, 
merely  to  abstain  from  repeating  the  assertion. 
An  ingenuous  disputant  would  have  been  eager 
to  acknowledge  and  apologize  for  so  great  a  mis- 
statement.* 

I  proceed  to  notice  some  of  the  statements,  con- 
tained in  your  Life  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rodgers,  which 
are  of  a  nature  to  reflect  great  discredit  on  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  country.  1  deeply  re- 
gret that  you  should  have  thought  it  necessary  to 
introduce  them.  Having  made  inquiry  into  the 
circumstances  to  which  they  relate,  I  feel  autho- 
rized to  declare  that  they  are  extremely  inaccu- 
rate and  unjust. 


•  Your  assertions  relative  to  the  Presbyterianism  of  the  continental 
RefoMners  are  full  of  inaccuracy;  but  tliis  subject  has  bicn  already 
pr.  iiy  fully  discussed  in  the  seventh  letter  of  this  Mork,  to  which  I 
refer  you. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGEllS.  4^15 

"  In  the  year  1760,  in  the  midst  of  Mr.  Rod- 
gers'  uscfuhiess  at  St.  Geor2;e's,  an  event  occurred, 
which  not  a  little  niorlified  him  and  his  friends, 
and  which  made  considerable  noise  in  the  eccle- 
siastical circles  of  America.  There  resided  in 
Philadelphia,  at  this  time,  the  Rev.  William  Mc 
Clenachan,  an  Episcopal  clergyman,  whoso  preach- 
ing was  considered  as  more  evangelical  than  that 
of  the  generality  of  his  brethren  of  the  same  de- 
nomination. While  this  circumstance  endeared 
him  to  a  considerable  number  of  the  Episcopalians 
of  Philadelphia,  and  rendered  them  earnestly  desi- 
rous of  retaining  him  as  their  minister;  it  excited 
the  opposition  of  a  still  greater  number,  and 
threatened  to  produce  his  exclusion  from  the  Epis- 
copal Church  in  that  city.  During  a  meeting  of 
the  Synod  of  New-York  and  Philadelphia,  in 
May,  1760,  the  character,  difficulties,  and  pros- 
pects of  Mr.  Mc  Clenachan,  happening  to  be  the 
topic  of  more  general  and  more  w^arm  conversa- 
tion than  usual,  a  number  of  the  members  of  the 
Synod  were  so  deeply  impressed  with  the  excel- 
lence of  his  character,  and  the  probable  useful- 
ness of  his  ministry,  and  felt  so  much  interest  in 
his  continuing  to  reside  in  Philadelphia,  that  they 
determined  to  attempt  something  in  his  behalf: 
and  accordingly  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Archbi- 
shop of  Canterbury,  requesting  him  to  exert  his 
official  influence,  in  favouring  Mr.  Mc  Clenach^ui's 
wishes,  and  those  of  his  friends,  that  he  might 
retain  his  place."* 

*  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers,  p.  105,  106. 


4i^i  tXAM [NATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

Mr.  Mc  Clenachan  was  a  zealous  and  exem- 
plary clergyman.  In  his  public  ministrations  he 
v/as  more  fervent,  and  insisted  more  upon  the 
'*vangclical  doctrines  of  the  Cross  than  the  gene- 
rality of  his  brethren.  This  rendered  him  obnoxi- 
ous to  the  majority  of  the  Episcopalians  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  led  them  to  take  measures  to  expel 
him  from  the  Church. 

Such  is  vour  statement. 

Never  was  there  a  grosser  misrepresentation  of 
facts.  The  conduct  of  Mr.  Mc  Clenachan  was,  in 
a  very  high  degree,  reprehensible.  He  was  not 
only  extremely  factious  in  his  temper,  and  inde- 
cent in  his  conduct ;  but  there  was  serious  ground 
for  questioning  his  private  as  well  as  his  ministe- 
rial integrity.  Let  me  present  you  with  a  few 
extracts  from  the  letter  of  remonstrance  addressed 
to  him  by  the  excellent  Archbishop  Seeker. 

"  You  speak  of  your  behaviour  as  a  Missionary; 
and  I  follow  you  in  that  the  more  readily,  as  it  re- 
lates to  the  Society.  You  were  appointed  March 
21,  1755:  and  your  salary  commenced  from 
Christmas  preceding:  But  you  did  not  embark  for 
America  till  August.  You  say  it  was  for  want  of 
a  ship:  And  I  make  no  objection,  though  the  time 
seems  long.  You  landed  at  Boston  October  lOth, 
and  there  you  stayed  till  May  following,  because 
you  did  not  think  it  safe  to  carry  your  family,  on 
the  eve  of  pointer,  to  the  place  of  your  mission, 
where  no  house  was  provided  for  you.  But  might 
not  you  have  gone  without  your  family,  as  you  did 
at  last,   no  house   being  still  provided  for   you? 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  R0DGCR3.  447 

However,  I  pass  over  this  also.  Nor  will  I  enter 
into  wliat  hath  been  repurted  of  your  hiring  a 
house  at  Boston  for  a  year,  some  say  for  tlircc 
years,  as  if  you  proposed  to  fix  there;  or  of  your 
attempting;  to  procure  a  settlement  in  Ur.  Cutler's 
Cliurch,  till  you  were  forbidden  his  pulpit....  You 
first  went  to  Virginia;  of  which  I  shall  take  notice 
afterwards;  then  to  Philadelphia:  from  which  city 
you  sent,  June  22d,  1759,  your  first  notification  to 
the  Society  of  your  resigning  your  mission;  and 
desired  to  have  your  salary  paid  till  midsummer, 
alleging  that  it  wanted  but  two  days  of  the  time. 
This  the  Society  granted  of  course;  not  suspect- 
ing that  you  had  left  the  place  of  your  mission  six 
months  before,  which  you  ought  fairly  to  have  told 
them.  And  thus  you  received  your  salary  for  four 
years  and  an  half,  besides  gratuities  of  201.  and 
were  but  two  years  and  an  half  upon  your  mis- 
sion." 

"  You  say,  that  you  are  cruelly  and  umvarranta^ 
oly  thurst  out  of  the  Church,  meaning  Dr.  Jenney's, 
Now,  from  what  he  and  others  have  said,  1  rather 
conceive,  that  cruel  and  unwarrantable  steps  have 
been  taken  to  thurst  you  into  it.  But  certainly 
you  v>^ere  not  thurst  out ;  for  you  were  never  legally 
admitted." 

"  Yet  your  followers  professed  great  zeal  for  the 
peace  of  the  Church;  and  you  profess  great  grief, 
that  it  is  wounded;  and  declare  in  your  own  name 
and  theirs,  that  you  will  strictly  adhere,  not  onl> 
to  the  Liturgy  and  Doctrines,  but  to  the  Discipline 
of  the  Charch  of  England.     Pray,  Sir,  consider ; 


448  EXAMINATION  OF  1)K.  MILLER'S         LET.  XI, 

Can  you  adhere  to  tlie  Discipline  of  the  Church 
of  England,  whilst  you  act  in  defiance  to  the  Bi- 
shop, the  Minister  of  the  Parish,  and  the  Vestry, 
on  principles  that  tend  to  the  dissolution  of  all 
Churches,  and  the  subversion  of  all  ecclesiastical 
order?  How  could  such  an  imagination  come  into 
your  mind  ?  And  how  can  you  request  me  to  coun- 
tenance such  proceedings?" 

^'  On  what  grounds  do  you  affirm,  that  the  doom 
arc  shut  against  you  for  teaching  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel?  I  hope  you  do  not  account  your  Bishop 
an  enemy  to  them:  And  besides,  his  reasons  for 
declining  to  license  you  are  not  in  the  least 
founded  on  the  doctrines  which  you  teach.  Nor, 
I  believe,  have  you  been  charged  in  any  letter  to 
him,  nor  certainly  are  you  charged  in  Dr.  Jenney's 
letter  to  the  Vestry  on  your  dismission,  with  false 
tenets,  but  with  railing  accusations.  And  of  this 
charge  you  have,  in  your  letter  to  me,  gone  a  great 
way  towards  proving  yourself  guilty." 

"  Ought  it  not  to  give  you  a  further  distrust  of 
your  proceedings,  that  no  one  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  America  hath  declared 
himself  to  approve  them :  And  that  the  conven- 
tion of  clergymen,  which  met  at  Philadelphia  last 
May,  have  strongly  expressed  their  disapprobation 
of  your  behaviour  both  in  that  convention  and  out 
of  it ;  and  have  signified  that  they  would  not  suf- 
fer you  to  preach  in  any  of  their  pulpits?  Which 
is  the  more  probable  presumption  of  the  two? 
That  you  are  in  the  wrong,  or  that  all  the  rest  of 
the  Clergy  are?" 


LET.  Xr.  LIFE  OF  dh.  kodgers.  4UI 

"But,  for  the  sake  of  an  infinitely  more  import- 
ant interest,  I  beg  you  would  consitler  the  solemn 
promise,  which  you  have  made,  '  reverently  to 
obey  your  Ordinary,  and  other  chief  Ministers  to 
whom  the  charge  and  government  over  you  is 
commiitedj'  and  ^  to  maintain  and  set  forwards 
as  much  as  in  you  lieth,  quietness,  peace,  and 
love  amongst  all  Christian  people.'  But  if  you 
turn  a  deaf  ear  to  this  entreaty,  I  must  then  beg 
your  followers,  for  whose  perusal,  as  well  as  yours 
this  letter  is  intended,  to  remember  and  observe 
St.  Paul's  rule,  ^  Mark  them  which  cause  divi- 
sions and  offences,  and  avoid  them.'  As  I  have 
written  these  things,  if  I  know  my  own  heart,  in 
the  spirit  of  meekness,  I  hope  you  will  read  them 
with  the  same;  and  not  be  kindled  by  them  into 
that  '  wrath  of  man,'  which  '  worketh  not  the 
righteousness  of  God.'  Part  of  them,  I  am  sen- 
sible, must  give  you  pain.  But  '  faithful  are  the 
wounds  of  a  friend:'  and  I  am  very  sorry,  that 
you  have  allowed  me  no  other  w^ay  of  approving 
myself 

"  Your  sincere  friend 

"  THO.  CANT." 

You  had  free  access,  I  know,  to  the  book  con- 
taining this  letter  of  the  Archbishop,  with  tUe 
other  documents  relating  to  the  subject.  That  you 
should  sulTer  yourself,  with  full  knowledge  of  the 
true  circumstances  of  the  case,  to  advance  such  a 
charge  against  the  Episcopalians  of  Philadelphia, 
and  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  the  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania generally,  is  to  me   most  astonishing.     J 

57 


450  EXAIvnNATIOiN  OF  DR.  RTILEER's        LET.  XE* 

am  far  from  referring  it  to  a  disposition  to  misre- 
present—No, Sir,  I  sincerely  believe  that  it  pro- 
ceeds from  a  force  of  prejudice,  which  completely 
blinds  you  on  every  subject  connected  with  the 
Episcopal  Churrh. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  I  must  do  you  the 
justi  e  to  say,  that  you  condemn,  in  very  decided 
terms,  the  improper  interference  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  in  the  affair  of  Mr.  Mc  Clenachan.  I 
can  also  add,  with  perfect  sincerity,  that  I  believe 
the  address  of  the  ministers  in  question  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  the  result  simply 
of  ill-regulated  zeal.  The  address  is  conceived 
in  very  respectful  terms,  and  is  far  from  breathing 
an  unfriendly  spirit. 

"  About  the  year  1754,  Capt.  Jeremiah  Owen,  a 
native  of  England,  who  had  long  been  an  exem- 
plary member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  New- 
York,  died,  and  left  a  legacy  of  750  dollars,  the 
interest  of  which  he  directed  to  be  applied  annu- 
ally toward  the  instruction  of  paor  children  of  that 
congregation,  in  reading,  writing,  and  the  use  oi* 
figures.  Capt.  Owen,  having  been  long  intimate 
with  Mr.  William  Ludlow,  a  respectable  inhabit- 
ant of  the  city,  and  a  member  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  appointed  him  his  executor.  This  le- 
gacy, of  course,  with  the  other  portions  of  the 
testator's  estate,  came  into  Mr.  Ludlow's  hands. 
The  gentlemen  who  were  in  the  habit  of  manag- 
ing the  temporal  concerns  of  the  Presbyteriaa 
Church,  called,  soon  afterward,  on  Mr.  Ludlow, 
and  requested  the  payment  of  the  money.     He 


LET.  XU  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  451 

declined  complying  with  their  request,  allepring 
that,  as  the  Church  was  not  incorporated,  no  per- 
son or  body  of  persons,  could  legally  receive  the 
legacy,  or  give  him  a  discharge  for  the  same; 
The  applicants,  not  knowing  how  to  remove  this 
difficulty,  suspended  the  prosecution  of  their  claim 
until  some  more  favourable  opportunity  might 
arise. 

"  I«  the  mean  time,  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  being  informed  of  the  legacy,  and  that 
the  Trustees  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  ap- 
plied for  it  in  vain,  made  every  effort  to  get  it  out  of 
Mr.  Ludlow's  hands,  and  appropriate  it  to  their  own 
use.  They  entreated,  remonstrated,  and  threat-? 
ened ;  but  without  success.  Mr.  Ludlow  declared, 
that,  although  he  was  a  zealous  Episcopalian; 
yet  as  the  money  was  committed  to  him  in  trust, 
and  for  a  very  different  purpose,  they  should  neve? 
possess  it,  unless  they  took  it  from  him  by  force. 
Finding  his  honesty  and  honour  too  inflexible  to 
admit  the  hope  of  getting  the  legacy  into  their 
hands,  the  Vestry  next  proposed  to  Mr.  Ludlow^, 
that  he  should  send  those  children,  the  expense 
of  whose  education  the  interest  of  the  legacy 
would  defray,  to  their  charity-school,  where  they 
might  be  instructed  at  the  ordinary  rate.  But  this 
proposal  also  Mr.  Ludlow  pointedly  rejected,  ob- 
serving, that  Capt.  Owen  was  a  Presbyterian,  of 
long  standing,  and  of  known  principle ;  and  that, 
although  he  had  not  mentioned  it,  or  made  it  one 
of  the  conditions  in  his  will ;  it  doubtless  was  his 
intention,  ihdii  the  children  instnicted .  by  means 


'i52  EXAMINATION  OF  PR.  MILLER'S        LET.  XI. 

of  his  legacy,  should  be  educated  in  the  Presby- 
terian faith,  and  attend  the  Presbyterian  Church: 
whereas,  if  the  proposal  of  the  Vestry  were  ac- 
cepted, the  children  instructed  at  their  scliool 
jnust  of  necessity  attend  their  Church.  The 
members  of  the  Vestry  appointed  to  conduct  this 
negociation,  by  way  of  answer  to  these  remarks, 
asked  him,  somewhat  tartly,  '  Are  you  not  a 
Churchman^  Sir?'  ^  Yes,'  he  replied,  M  am  a 
Churchman;  but  I  am  also  an  honest  man^  and  am 
determined  to  fulfil  the  intention  of  Capt.  Owen, 
to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  ability.' 

"  The  Vestry  at  length,  despairing  of  success, 
abandoned  the  pursuit  of  this  legacy ;  and  it  re- 
mained a  number  of  years  in  Mr.  Ludlow's  hands. 
This  gentleman,  how^ever,  with  characteristic  pro- 
bity and  honour,  though  he  could  not  pay  it  to 
any  corporation,  nor  to  any  body  of  persons  en- 
titled by  law  to  receive  it,  determined  to  employ 
it,  while  in  his  hands,  most  rigidly  in  conformity 
with  the  will  of  the  testator.  He  was,  therefore, 
in  the  habit,  for  near  ten  years,  of  selecting  poor 
Presbyterian  children,  placing  them  under  the 
care  of  Presbylcricin  school-masters,  and  defray- 
ing the  expenses  of  their  instruction  with  the 
avails  of  this  legacy.  Things  continued  in  this 
state  until  the  year  1765,  when  Mr.  Rodgers  be- 
came the  pastor  of  the  Church;  and  when  the 
bequest  of  Capt.  Owen  was  destined  to  become 
the  i'oundaiioii  of  an  important  charity-school  es- 
tablishment."* 

•  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers,  p.  167,  1G8,  169,  170. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  453 

This,  it  will  be  admitted,  is  a  most  extraordi- 
nary narrative.  We  nuturally  call  for  the  cv hhince- 
on  which  it  rests;  but  not  a  jjarticle  of  evidence 
is  produced.  You  tell  us,  indeed,  that  the  history 
wjiich  you  give  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
Xew-York,  is  compiled  from  documents  which 
were  prepared  by  Dr.  Rodgers  himself,  and  put 
into  your  hands  by  him  several  years  before  his 
decease.*  But  where  are  these  documents?  Sure- 
ly, in  advancing  such  a  serious  charge,  and  one 
calculated  deeply  to  wound  the  feelings  of  the 
whole  body  of  Episcopalians,  you  must  have  been 
aware  that  proof  would  be  demanded  capable  of 
enduring  the  test  of  the  strictest  examination. 
Still  you  offer  no  proof; — speaking,  indeed,  of 
documents;  but  giving  your  reader  no  opportunity 
of  inspecting  them.  Dr.  Rodgers  settled  in  the 
city  of  New- York  some  years  after  the  transaction 
in  question  is  represented  to  have  taken  place. 
Of  course,  it  was  only  matter  of  hearsay  with 
him.  Some  one  told  it  to  him,  and  he  told  it  to 
you.  Such  is  the  ground  upon  which  you  have 
felt  yourself  at  liberty  to  cast  the  foulest  aspersion 
upon  a  body  of  men  who  have  ever  maintained 
the  most  unimpeachable  character. 

Here,  then,  I  might  dismiss  the  subject.  The 
common  rules  of  justice  require  us  to  believe  a 
man  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty.  A  naked 
charge  only  reflects  disgrace  upon  him  who  ad- 
vances it. 

♦  l^ife  of  Dr.  Bodgers,  p.  173 


454  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XL 

But  your  narrative  is  incredible  upon  its  very- 
face.  Suppose  as  much  baseness  as  you  please  in 
the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and  only  admit  that 
they  were  not  absolute  idiots,  and  they  never 
could  have  been  guilty  of  the  foul  conduct  which 
you  impute  to  them.  It  must  have  exposed  them 
to  the  contempt  and  derision  of  every  decent  man 
in  the  community.  What!  a  rich  and  most  re- 
spectable corporation  throw  away  their  character 
for  the  paltry  sum  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars? What  absurdities  will  not  the  keen  spirit  of 
sectarian  jealousy  digest!  No,  Sir,  no — your  state- 
ment is  too  ridiculous  to  be  credited  by  a  single 
man  of  common  understanding  united  with  com- 
mon charity.  If  there  be  any  foundation  what- 
ever for  the  story,  the  circumstances  must  be  so 
entirely  perverted  in  the  narrative  as  to  lose  all 
resem  fiance  to  the  reality.  How  easy  is  it,  even 
by  a  very  slight  departure  from  the  exact  facts  of 
a  transaction,  completely  to  change  its  whole 
complexion  !  Take  your  narrative  as  strictly  ac- 
curate, and  the  Vestry  could  not  have  displayed 
a  more  profligate  disregard  for  all  the  rules  of  ho- 
nesty if  they  had  appointed  a  committee  to  plun- 
der Mr.  Ludlow's  house.  At  the  period  in  ques- 
tion, the  Rev.  Dr.  Barclay  was  Rector  of  Trinity 
Church — a  man  who  has  bequeathed  a  most  pure 
and  exalted  character  to  his  posterity.  Would 
Dr.  Barclay,  think  you,  have  engaged  in  such  a 
base  scheme  of  robbery  ?  Would  the  highly  re- 
spectable men  who  composed  the  Vestry?  I  find, 
upon  inquiry,  that  none  of  the  members  of  the 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  BR.  RODGERS.  455 

Vestry  at  present  in  tlie  city,  had  ever  heard  a  syl- 
lable of  the  charge  in  question,  until  it  appeared 
in  your  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers.  A  venerable  gentle- 
man, who  was  a  member  of  the  Vestry  before  the 
revolutionary  war,  and  who  is  now  upwards  of 
ninety  years  of  age,  remarkable  for  his  knowledge 
of  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church,  could  give  me  iw 
information  upon  the  subject.  It  was  perfectly 
new  to  him.  When  I  stated  the  case,  after  as- 
suring me  that  he  had  never  heard  of  any  such 
transaction  previously  to  the  publication  of  your 
work,  he  added,  that  he  had  never  known  the 
Vestry  to  show  a  disposition  to  invade  the  property 
of  others — on  the  contrary,  their  distinguishing 
trait  of  character  had  always  been  that  of  libera- 
lity, in  the  gratuitous  distribution  of  their  own. 

The  minutes  of  the  Vestry,  from  the  year  1754 
to  the  year  1764,  have  been  strictly  examined, 
and  the  following  is  the  result. 

Having  examined  icith  strict  attention  the  minutes 
of  the  Vestry  from  the  year  1754  to  1764,  do  not 
find  the  name  of  Mr.  William  Ludlow^  or  a  Mr, 
Owen  once  mentioned ;  or  a  committee  appointed  to 
wait  upon  or  to  treat  with  William  Ludloiv^  on  that^ 
or  any  subject  ivhich  has  the  least  reference  to  whai 
is  inserted  in  Dr.  Miller^  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers. 

^THO.  BARROW. 

Here,  Sir,  is  the  best  evidence  which  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  will  admit.  You  have  no  way  of 
obviating  it  but  by  charging  the  Vestry  with  muti- 
lating their  records.  Men  who  would  be  guilty  of 
so  baie  an  act  as  that  which  you  impute  to  the 


466  EXAMlNATIOiN  Ol    DR.  MILLtR'b        LET.  Xf, 

Vestry  of  Trinity  Chiircb,  would  not  hesitate,  cer- 
tainly, to  destroy  the  evidences  of  their  guilt. 

Unless  you  had  unanswerable  proof  to  produce, 
the  rules  oi^  common  decorum  required  you  to  be 
silent.  In  bringing  forward  such  a  charge,  with- 
out a  single  document  to  support  it,  with  nothing, 
as  appears  from  the  very  face  of  the  story,  to  rest 
it  upon  but  mere  hearsay,  you  have  offered  an  in- 
sult to  every  respectable  man  in  the  community. 

You  mention  one  other  attempt  made  by  Epis- 
copalians to  seize  the  property  of  their  Presbyte- 
rian brethren.  It  occurred  in  the  village  of  Ja- 
maica, Long-Island,  where  the  Episcopal  congre- 
gation, according  to  your  statement,  took  violent 
possession  of  a  building  for  public  worship,  erect- 
ed by  the  Presbyterians;  and  also  contrived  to  get 
the  parsonage  house  into  their  hands.  It  seems, 
however,  that  they  were  finally  defeated  in  their 
dishonest  attempt. 

There  is  great  difTiculty,  in  these  cases,  to  get 
at  the  exact  truth.  We  can  never  rely  upon  the 
statement  of  one  of  the  parties.  Take  the  case  pre- 
cisely as  related  by  you,  and  the  Episcopalians  of 
Jamaica  acted  most  unworthily;  but  it  is  fair,  and 
quite  natural  to  suppose  that  they  had  some  ex- 
planation to  give,  or  some  justification  to  offer, 
which,  if  we  could  have  access  to  it,  would  pre- 
sent the  thing  in  a  very  different  point  of  light. 

Do  you  think  the  minute  relation  of  such  small 
controversies  calculated  to  render  any  service  to 
the  cause  of  religion?  At  all  events,  was  it  not 
your  duty  to  accompany  this  uarrative,  and  others 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  R0DGER3.  457 

of  a  similar  nature,  with  the  re  naric,  no  less  cha- 
ritable than  true,  that  the  genuine  principles  of 
religious  toleration  were  not  pro[)erly  understood, 
or  acted  upon,  at  that  period,  by  any  denomina- 
tion of  Christians?     To  assort  or  insinuate  that 
there  was  a  peculiar  dispositioi]  in  Episcopalians 
to  treat  their  fellow  Christians  of  other  denomi- 
nations with  severity,  would  be  doing  them  very 
great  injustice.    I  pass  this  part  of  your  work  with 
the  single  remark,    that  if  the  Episcopalians  of 
this  country  have  sometimes  inflicted  pecuniary 
injury  upon  Presbyterians,  they  have  much  more 
frequently,  and  much  more  seriously  suffered  it  at 
their  hands.     There  would   be  no  difficulty  in  de- 
scending to  particulars.     But  I  dismiss  an  odious 
subject,    which  I  deeply  regret  that  you  should 
have  thought  it  expedient  to  introduce. 

You  give  a  very  particular  account  of  several 
unsuccessful  applications  which  were  made  to  the 
British  govern mnnl,  by  the  Wall-street  congrega- 
tion, for  an  act  of  incorporation;  ascribing  the 
failure,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  influence  of  the 
Episcopalians  of  this  country,  and  especially  t© 
that  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church. 

This,  like  most  of  the  charges  contained  in 
your  book,  is  a  mere  ex  parte  statement,  resting 
very  much  on  tradition.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  unsuccessful  applications  were  made  by  the 
Wall-street  congregation  for  a  charter;  but  that 
these  applications  failed  in  consequence  of  unjust 
and  ungenerous  practices  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
of  this  country,  may  well  be  set  down  as  a  c*« 

58 


458  EXAMlxNATlON  Oi   DK.  MILLER's         LET.  Xfc. 

jumny  of  lier  opponents,  ratlier  than  as  an  aulhea- 
ticated  historical  fact. 

The  charge  under  consideration  was  urged  with 
much  warmth  in  the  controversy  which  took  place, 
in  this  country,  previously  to  the  revolutionary 
war,  on  the  subject  of  an  American  Episcopate, 
The  following  is  the  notice  taken  of  it  by  Dr. 
Chandler,  in  his  Reply  to  Dr.  Chauncy. 

^'  The  disappointment  of  the  Presbyterians  in 
New- York,  with  regard  to  a  charter,  he  had  men- 
tioned in  his  former  pamphlet ;  and  enough  was 
said  in  answer,  to  show  that  they  have,  upon  the 
whole,  no  great  reasons  for  complaint.  Among 
other  things,  it  was  observed  in  the  Appeal  De- 
fended^ that  ^  it  was  the  belief  at  home,  that  the 
Church  of  England  had  been  treated  with  pecu- 
liar malevolence,  by  some  of  those  very  persons 
whose  names  were  annexed  to  the  petition.  It 
was  therefore  not  unnatural  to  suspect,  that  any 
additional  power  put  into  thp  hands  of  such  per- 
sons, would,  as  opportunity  should  offer,  be  ex- 
erted against  the  Church.'  If  nothing  farther  could 
be  said,  yet  so  long  as  this  was  believed  to  be  the 
case,  whether  justly  or  not,  it  was  of  itself  a  suf- 
ficient reason — not  for  abridging  the  religious  li- 
berty— but  for  not  enlarging  the  power,  of  the 
Presbyterians  in  New- York.  And  yet  Dr.  Chauncy 
takes  not  the  least  notice  of  this  observation,  nor 
of  any  thing  I  said  relating  to  the  subject;  but 
sounds  a  false  alarm  to  all  the  Colonies,  to  pre- 
pare for  a  defence,  against  the  oppressive  designs 
of  the  Church  of  England. 


LZT.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  45^ 

"  But  the  refusal  of  favours  by  the  government, 
to  particular  persons  who  had  made  themselves 
obnoxious  to  government,  by  a  supposed  scurril- 
ous abuse  of  the  national  establishment,  which 
ought  always  to  be  trertted  with  decency,  is  no 
proof  of  the  ill  teuiper  of  Episcopalians,  nor  an 
argument  of  the  unwillingness  of  government  to 
grant  favours  to  other  persons,  although  of  the 
same  religious  denomination,  that  have  not  dis- 
covered the  same  disposition: — Much  less  does  it 
prove  any  design  to  deprive  such  persons  of  any 
privileges,  of  which  they  are  in  fair  and  legal 
possession.  If  the  conduct  of  the  Presbyterians 
in  New-York  has  been  mistaken,  or  misrepre- 
sented, let  it  be  made  to  appear.  If  they,  or 
their  friends,  can  prove,  or  make  it  probable,  that 
they  have  not  publi<:ly  vilified  and  abused  the  na- 
tional Church,  and  that  they  have  been  free  from 
all  secret  intrigues  and  combinations  against  it: 
in  my  opinion,  they,  as  well  as  other  Protestants, 
are  entitled  to  all  favours  from  the  patrons  of  the 
Church,  that  are  consistent  w^rth  safety,  or  the 
constitution.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  are 
conscious  of  their  o^Yn  ^vil  intentions  and  prac* 
tices  against  the  Church  of  England,  and  know 
that  some  of  them  have  been  actually  discovered; 
it  is  surprising  that  they  can  expect,  much  more 
that  they  can  have  th'e  assurance  to  ask,  particular 
favours,  to  the  granting  of  which,  the  consent  of 
those,  who  regard  the  interest  and  honour  of 
the  Church,  is  necessary.  I  will  not  enter  farther 
into  the  conduct,  oi  the  case  of  the  Pxesbyterian<^ 


460  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

in  New-Yoik.  Let  them  but  clear  themselves  of 
the  charges  and  suspicions  with  which  they  are 
loaded  ;  and  then,  if  any  reasonable  favours  are 
refused  them,  barely  ort  account  of  their  religious 
principles,  the  dissenters  throughout  the  colonies 
will  have  just  reason  to  expect  the  same  treatment, 
and  not  betbre."* 

1  will  not  undertake  to  defend  the  conduct  of 
the  British  government  on  this  occasion.  It  would 
probably  have  been  more  coirect,  as  well  as  more 
liberal  to  have  granted  the  petition.  Of  the  exact 
force  of  the  reasons  assigned  for  the  refusal  in  the 
work  of  Dr.  Chandler,  it  is  extremely  difficult, 
however,  now  to  judge.  But,  complaint,  at  all 
events,  comes  w^th  a  very  ill  grace  from  you;  for, 
in  the  same  publication  in  which  you  prefer  the 
complaint,  you  scruple  not  to  justify  the  violent 
op})osition  made  by  the  dissenters  to  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Episcopalians  of  this  country,  to  have 
Bishops  settled  among  them.  It  is  a  fact,  that 
although  the  Episcopal  Church  was  the  esta- 
blished Church  of  England,  it  was  not  placf/d, 
in  her  American  colonies,  upon  equal  ground  with 
dissenting  societies.  It  could  scarcely,  indeed, 
be  said  to  enjoy  the  full  benefits  of  religious  tole- 
ration. Being  destitute  of  Bishops,  it  had  not 
the  means  of  exercising  those  powers,  and  dis- 
pensing those  ordinances,  which,  in  its  view, 
constitute  very  important  parts  of  the  Christian 
dispensation ;  while   its   dissenting  brethren  pos- 

•  Appeal  farther  Defended,  p.  228,  229,  230. 


LKT.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGEUS.  461 

sessed  all  the  olTicers,  and  all  the  ordinances  ad- 
mitted or  recognized  in  their  pu!)lic  forniularies. 
This  was  a  state  of  things  not  niure  unnatural 
than  it  was  unjust.  There  can  be  no  doubt  tliat 
the  British  government  w^as  principally  influenced, 
in  the  part  which  it  acted  in  this  business,  by  the 
fear  of  inflaming  the  dissenters  of  this  country, 
^vho  opposed  the  measure  with  the  utmost  vio- 
lence. Collect,  Sir,  the  examples  of  intolerant 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  American  Episcopali- 
ans towards  their  dissenting  brethren,  which  his- 
tory may  really  furnish,  and  this  single  case  of  the 
furious  opposition  made  by  the  dissenters,  to  what 
may  in  fact  be  called  the  toleration  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  in  this  country,  will  infinitely  out- 
weigh them  all.  At  the  same  time,  I  have  no  he* 
sitation  in  expressing  my  belief,  that  no  inconsi- 
derable part  of  the  opposition,  in  question,  pro- 
ceeded less  from  a  spirit  of  injustice  or  persecu- 
tion, than  from  misapprehension  and  prejudice. 
But,  amid  all  the  charges  w  hich  you  bring  against 
your  American  fellow  Christians  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  if  we  look  for  any  charitable  allowance 
grounded  on  misapprehension,  prejudice,  or  even 
the  universally  prevailing  errors  of  the  age,  w^e 
look  in  vain. 

Indeed,  Sir,  it  was  not  without  some  reason 
that  your  opponents  represented  you  as  writing 
with  bitterness. 

You  proceed  to  relate,  very  minutely,  a  journey 
of  Mr.  Rodgers  to  Virginia,  and  the  severe  treat- 
ment which  he  met  with  from  Episcopalians  there. 


462  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's         LET.  Xl. 

The  journey  of  Mr.  Rodgers  to  Virginia,  took 
place  in  the  year  1748.  The  Episcopal  Church 
being  then  the  established  Church  of  Virginia, 
the  privileges  of  dissenters  were  regulated  by  an 
act  of  the  British  Parliament,  entitled  the  "  Act 
of  Toleration."  Under  the  construction  given  to 
this  act,  at  the  period  in  question,  in  Virginia,  li- 
censes could  be  demanded  for  regular  congrega- 
tions of  dissenters.  Accordingly,  it  appears  from 
your  own  account,  that  Mr  Davies  was  licensed 
as  the  regular  pastor  of  four  congregations  ;*  but 
Mr.  Rodgers  not  being  called  to  any  particular 
congregation,  but  intending  to  pass  through  the 
State  as  an  itinerant  preacher,  his  case  seems  to 
have  been  considered  as  not  coming  within  the 
terms  of  the  "  Act  of  Toleration,"  and  his  appli 
cation  for  a  license  was,  accordingly,  refused. 

This  treatment  was  certainly  very  much  at  va- 
riance with  the  ideas  and  practice  of  the  present 
day,  both  in  Great-JSritain  and  the  United  States. 
We  should  consider  such  conduct  now  as  ex- 
tremely oppressive  ;  but  we  shall  not  do  justice  to 
our  forefathers,  if,  in  judging  of  their  acts,  we 
forget  to  make  allowance  for  the  ideas  and  spirit 
of  the  age  in  which  they  lived.  Take  as  at  least  a 
complete  set  off  against  the  treatment  of  Mr.  Rod- 
gers hy  the  Episcopalians  of  Virginia,  that  which 
Mr.  I'inley  received  from  the  Congregationalists 
of  Connecticut.  The  case  of  Mr.  Finley  is  inci- 
dentally mentioned  in  your  work.    "  The  Legisla* 

•  Life  of  Dr.  Rod^cr.f,  p.  47,  4« 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  R0DGER3.  4^3 

ture  of  Connecticut  passed  a  law,  about  this  time, 
prohibiting  itinerant  preachers  from  entering  pa- 
rishes in  which  a  minister  was  settled,  unless  by 
his  consent.  For  violating  this  law,  by  preaching 
to  a  congregation  in  New-Haven,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Finley,  afterwards  President  Finley,  was  arrested 
by  the  civil  authority,  and  carried,  as  a  vagrant, 
out  of  the  Colony."* 

Now  the  treatment  which  Mr.  Finley  received 
was  much  more  humiliating  than  that  of  Mr. 
Rodgers ;  the  former  having  been  arrested  and 
earried  away  as  a  vagrant,  while  the  latter  was 
merely  refused  a  license  to  preach.  And  yet  the 
one  case  is  dwelt  upon  by  you  at  much  length, 
as  an  intolerable  grievance,  and  an  evidence  of 
the  persecuting  temper  of  Episcop  dians;  whereas, 
in  mentioning  the  latter,  you  drop  not  the  slight- 
est hint  of  disapprobation. 

It  is  a  most  wanton  violation  of  justice  to  re- 
present the  Church  of  England  as  remarkable  for 
her  intolerance.  No  Church  in  Christendom,  in- 
deed, can  pretend,  in  this  particular,  to  be  en- 
tirely guiltless.  All  Christian  societies  have,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree^  persecutqd.t     But  thus  far 


»  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers,  p.  80. 

I  The  historian  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ven- 
tures to  contrast  the  intolerant  spirit  of  Christians  with  the  mild 
tfemper  of  Heathenism.  But,  in  doing-  this,  he  has  certainly  wundered 
very  far  from  a  correct  representation  of  the  fact.  In  truth,  the 
principles  and  practice  of  religious  intolerance,  were  derived  frera 
Pagan  to  Christian  Rome;  and  it  is  matter  of  profound  humiliation  to 
us  that  they  should  have  retained,  for  so  lorg  :i  period,  their  power 
over  the  human  mind.    The  ciroumstonce  which  Voltaire  smd  Gibbon 


4G4  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's         LET.  XJ. 

I  will,  with  confidence,  assert  of  the  Church  of 
England,  that  she  was  remarkable,  even  among 

adduce  as  evidence  of  the  mild  spirit  of  Heathenism  is  very  far  from 
ppaving  that  individuals  were  freely  indulg-ed  in  religious  practices, 
and  in  the  expression  of  religious  opinions,  that  were  decidedly  at 
variance  with  t!ie  established  modes,  either  of  faith  or  worship.  It 
was  the  common  idea  of  the  Pagan  world,  that  each  couniry  had  its 
particular  divinities,  who  presided  over  it.  Accordingly,  when  the 
Uomans  proposed  to  reduce  any  country  under  their  subjection  it 
was  their  general  practice  to  invite  the  tutelary  Gods  of  such  country 
to  abandon  it,  and  to  promise  them  a  much  more  spKndid  worship 
in  the  city  of  Rome.  In  consequence  of  this  practice.  Home  became 
filled  with  an  infi  lite  multitude  of  gods,  who  were  worshipped  with 
an  endless  variety  of  rites.  But,  surely,  it  is  very  absurd  to  dignify 
this  with  the  character  of  religious  toleration  Were  individuals  per- 
mitted to  judge  for  themselves,  and,  thus  judging,  publicly  to  oppose 
tlie  established  creed,  or  publicly  to  depart  from  the  established  forms 
of  worship  ?  Nothing  can  be  more  express  than  the  testimony  of  the 
great  Roman  historian,  I/ivy,  on  this  subject.  He  tells  us  that  the 
pro]x:r  magistrates  were  frequently  charged  to  prohibit  the  introduc- 
tion of  any  foreign  religion,  and  to  suppress  every  mode  of  sacrifice 
that  differed  from  the  mode  which  was  established.  And  what  is  the 
reison  which  Livy  givrs  for  this  ?  Simply  that  all  departure  from  the 
regtilar  modes  of  sacrifice  must  prove  destructive  to  religion.*  Livy 
also  informs  us  of  an  express  edict  issued  by  the  Pretor,  under  a  de- 
cree of  the  Senate,  forbidding,  in  the  most  positive  terms,  all  public 
sacrificing  in  any  otlier  than  the  customary  modes.-j-  This,  it  appears 
from  Livy,  had  been  the  Roman  practice  from  the  beginning.  He  re- 
cords an  (M'der  given  at  a  very  early  period  of  the  Roman  history,  en- 
joining the  iEdiles  to  take  care  that  none  but  the  Gods  of  Rome  should 
be  worshipped,  and  that  they  should  be  worshipped  only  in  the  esta- 
blished form.t 

The  true  character  of  the  Roman  temper  upon  this  subject,  is  evi- 
dent  from  the  conduct  pursued  by  the  imperial  government  upon  the 
introduction  of  Christianity.  Here  was  a  case  exactly  fitted  to  test 
the  mild  spirit  of  toleration  which  V^oltaire  and  Gibbon  have  so  freely 
conceded  to  l*ag.4n  Rome.  The  religion  of  the  state  was  publicly  op- 
posed ;  idolatry  in  all  iis  shapes  being  denounced  as  a  heinous  crime. 
But  it  was  soon  found  that  opposition  to  the  religion  of  tlie  empire 
would  not  be  suffered  for  a  moment :  the  blood  of  the  Christians  was 

•  Liv.  lib.  xxxix.  cap.  IG-      f  H'i'^-  lib.  Iv.  cap.  30.      t  Ibid.  Kb.  ir.  cap.  30» 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  465 

Protestants,  for  the  mildness  and  tolerance  both 
of  her  principles,  and  her  practice.  As  the  Pro- 
testants have  much  less  to  answer  for,  on  this  sub- 
ject, than  their  Romish  adversaries,  the  Church 
of  England  inflicted  upon  her  dissenting  brethren 
much  less  persecution  than  she  suffered  at  their 
hands.  It  is  impossible,  all  circumstances  con- 
sidered, to  survey  the  conduct  of  the  enlightened 
and  excellent  Reformers  of  this  Church  without 
sentiments  of  the  sincerest  admiration.  Never 
had  men  a  more  arduous  task  to  perform.  While 
engaged  in  purging  the  Church  from  papal  error 
and  corruption,  and  in  defending  her  against  the 
fury  of  the  court  of  Rome,  a  set  of  men  arose 
within  her  bosom  to  distract  and  convulse  her  by 


shed  in  torrents.  The  true  idea  of  toleration  seems  never  to  have  been 
conceived  by  the  Pagan  mind ;  all  positive  departure  from  the  religion 
of  the  State  being  universally  considered  as  subversive  of  the  funda- 
mental purposes  of  society.  The  same  mode  of  thinking  continued  to 
prevail  after  the  empire  became  Christian.  The  religion  of  the  prince 
was  expected  to  be  the  religion  of  the  subject.  Thus  the  principle  of 
persecution  was  derived  from  the  Pagan  to  the  Christian  government  of 
Rome;  from  the  State  it  passed  to  the  Church;  and  it  required  the 
long  period  of  fourteen  hundred  years  to  purge  it  off.  Such  is  the 
true  source  of  the  laws  against  heretics,  which  disgrace  the  codes  of 
all  Christian  nations.  Without  dwelling  on  the  blood-stained  history 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  if  we  descend  to  the  period  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, how  are  we  grieved  at  finding  Protestants  dividing  into  hostile 
parties,  and,  notwithstanding  all  they  had  suffered  from  the  fiend  of 
papal  persecution,  displaying  so  little  of  the  Christian  temper  in  their 
treatment  of  one  anotlier !  Freely  conceding,  as  we  do,  tlje  praise  of 
eminent  learning  and  piety  to  your  great  master,  Calvin,  how  do  we 
•hudder,  at  the  same  time,  in  witnessing  the  flaming  intolerance  of 
his  spirit;  especially  when  we  behold  him,  with  inquisitorial  fury, 
bunting  Servetus  to  the  stake.  But  far  be  it  from  us  to  mark  out  Cal- 
vin as  an  object  of  particular  reprobation.  He  breathed,  in  common 
with  other  great  and  good  men,  th/s  noxious  spirit  of  the  age. 

59 


466  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XL 

their  intemperate  zeal.     It  ought  here  to  be  men- 
tioned that  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  conducted  in  so  enlightened  a  spirit  that 
there  was  no  separation  from  her,  even  by  the  Pa- 
pists themselves,    during  the   reign   of  Edward ; 
and,  upon  the  re-establishment  of  the  Protestant 
faith,  under  Elizabeth,  the  great  body  of  the  Ro- 
mish clergy  continued  to  conform  ;  most  of  them, 
indeed,  being  influenced  by  the  motive  of  retain- 
ing their  places  in  order  to  exercise  the  power, 
thence  to  be  derived,  in  furthering,  whenever  a 
suitable  opportunity  should  offer,  the  designs  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.     No  such  opportunity,  how- 
ever,  w^as  suffered  to  occur;   and  thus  the  cor- 
rupt views  of  individuals  were  overruled  to  the 
benefit  of  the  cause  which  it  was  their  secret  wish 
to  destroy.     At  length,  the  more  sagacious  of  the 
Romish  clergy  began  to  perceive  that  the  policy, 
which  they  were  pursuing,  would  very  soon  pro- 
duce a  separation  of  the  Church  of  England  from 
that  of  Rome,  as  complete  as  tranquil.     It  was 
evident  that  the  great  body  of  the  people  would 
be  weaned,  in  a  few  years,  from  their  supersti- 
tious prejudices ;  and  that,  at  all  events,  the  ris- 
ing generation  would  be  lost  to  the   Church  of 
Rome  for  ever.     Under  this  view  of  things,  they 
began  to  withdraw  from  the  Reformed  Church, 
and  to  hold  separate  meetings.     The  first  schism 
in  the  Church  of  England  was  thus  produced  by 
the  Papists.     But  the  example  was  soon  followed 
by  those  violent  men,  among  the  Protestants,  whom 
nothing  less  would  satisfy  than  a  system,  not  of 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DK.   RODGERS.  467 

reform,  but  of  utter  revolution.  The  baneful 
spirit  was  caught  at  Frankfort  and  Geneva,  to 
which  places  a  number  of  English  exiles  resorted 
during  the  persecution  of  Mary,  and  where  those 
divisions  commenced  which  afterwards  lead  to  so 
dreadful  a  catastrophe.  It  is  most  humiliating  to 
reflect  on  the  manner  in  which  the  artful  pohcy  of 
Rome  was  thus  forwarded  by  the  ill-judged  vio- 
lence of  her  enemies.  She  immediately  fell  in 
with  the  views  and  complaints  of  the  separatists; 
constantly  employing  agents  to  travel  through 
England,  charging  the  Reformed  Church  with  be- 
ing still  infected  with  the  worst  errors  of  popery, 
representing  her  form  of  worship  as  no  better  than 
the  Romish  mass  book,  and  crying  out,  with  the 
utmost  fury,  for  a  further,  and  complete  reforma- 
tion. The  court  of  Rome  acted,  in  this  particular, 
upon  the  express  principle  of  destroying  the  Church 
of  England,  through  the  instrumentality  of  her 
own  divisions;  and  it  was  confidently  calculated, 
by  the  papal  advocates,  that,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land being  overwhelmed,  the  Sectaries  would 
soon  exhibit  such  a  scene  of  division,  of  violence, 
and  of  folly,  as  would  compel  all  sober  men  to 
seek  refuge  even  under  the  yoke  of  spiritual  bond- 
age. In  this  calculation,  the  court  of  Rome 
showed  its  intimate  knowledge  of  the  human 
character.  The  Presbyterian,  Edwards,  gives  an 
account,  in  his  Gangrtena,  of  no  less  than  sixty 
sects  that  poured,  like  a  turbid  torrent,  into  Eng- 
land, when  the  barriers  of  a  primitive  Episcopacy 
were  thrown  down.  "  Things  grew  daily  worse  and 


468  EXAMINATION  OP  DR.  MILLER  S        LET.  XI. 

worse Instead  of  reformation,  we  are  grown 

from  one  extreme  to  another;  fallen  from  Sylla  to 
Charybdis ;  from  popish  innovations,  superstitions, 
and  prelatical  tyranny,  to  damnable  heresies,  hor- 
rible blasphemies,  libertinism,  and  fearful  anarchy. 
Our  evils  are  not  removed  and  cured,  but  only 
changed ;  one  disease  and  devil  hath  left  us,  and 
another  as  bad  is  come  in  his  room."^ 

The  natural  result  of  all  this  must  have  been 
the  revival  of  Romish  superstition  and  tyranny. 
But,  by  the  good  providence  of  God,  the  Church 
of  England  again  reared  her  head ;  and  thus  pre- 
vented a  relapse  into  popery,  by  presenting  Chris- 
tianity in  her  primitive  features,  equally  removed 
from  popish  absurdity  on  the  one  hand,  and  sec- 
tarian extravagance  on  the  other.  Now,  let  us 
figure  to  ourselves  the  Church  of  England,  pressed 
by  the  Romanists,  shaken  by  the  intemperate 
clamours  of  blind  zealots,  and  endeavouring  to 
preserve  the  pure  faith  and  worship  of  primitive 
Christianity  against  their  united  assaults.  It  is 
only  when  we  take  this  view  of  her  situation,  that 
we  are  able  to  appreciate  the  spirit  by  which 
she  was  actuated,  or  to  make  the  proper  allowance 
for  the  severe  measures,  to  which,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, she  did  not  scruple,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  to  resort. 

Besides,  in  estimating  the  struggle  between  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Puritans,  we  must 
always  bear  in  mind  the  object  which  the  latter. 

•  Edwards's  Can^xna,  Epist.  ded 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  469 

according  to  their  own  confession,  were  labouring 
to  accomplisli.  It  is  not  uncommon  lor  people  to 
say,  the  Church  should  have  tolerated  the  Puri- 
tans.— I  grant  it  most  freely. — But  it  was  not  tole- 
ration that  the  Puritans  demanded.  They  held  it 
in  abhorrence.  They  required  nothing  less  than 
the  complete  establishment  of  their  own  particular 
system,  and  the  enforcing  of  it  upon  the  CM^n- 
sciences  of  all  men  by  the  civil  power. — Where 
are  the  proofs  ? — They  are  so  abundant  as  to  put 
the  most  obstinate  credulity  to  silence. 

When  Sir  Francis  Walsingham,  who  was  their 
friend,  offered  the  Puritans,  in  the  Queen's  name, 
the  abolition  of  those  ceremonies  to  which  they 
were  most  opposed — kneeling  at  the  Communion, 
wearing  the  surplice,  and  the  cross  in  baptism,— 
they  indignantly  replied — ne  ungulam  esse  relin^ 
quendam — "  They  would  not  leave  so  much  as  a 
hoof  behind."  From  that  time,  Walsingham  aban- 
doned them ;  seeing  that  nothing  less  would  satisfy 
them  than  the  entire  subversion  of  the  Church. 

"  They  maintained,  that  they  themselves  were 
the  only  pure  Church ;  that  their  principles  and 
practices  ought  to  be  established  by  law;  and 
that  no  others  ought  to  be  tolerated.  It  may  be 
questioned,  therefore,  whether  the  administration 
at  this  time  could  with  propriety  deserve  the  ap- 
pellation of  persecutors  with  regard  to  the  Puri- 
tans. Such  of  the  clergy,  indeed,  as  refused  to 
comply  with  the  legal  ceremonies,  were  deprived 
of  their  livings,  and  sometimes  in  Elizabeth's 
reign  were  otherwise  punished:    And  ought  any 


470  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XI. 

man  to  accept  of  an  office  or  benefice  in  an  es- 
tablishment, while  he  declines  compliance  with 
the  fixed  and  known  rules  of  that  establishment  ? 
But  Puritans  were  never  punished  for  frequenting 
separate  congregations ;  because  there  were  none 
such  in  the  kingdom;  and  no  Protfistant  ever  as- 
sumed or  pretended  to  the  right  of  erecting  them."* 
"  Toleration  had  hitherto  been  so  little  the  prin- 
ciple of  any  Christian  sect,  that  even  the  Catho- 
lics, the  remnant  of  the  religion  professed  by 
their  forefathers,  could  not  obtain  from  the  Eng- 
lish the  least  indulgence.  This  very  House  of 
Commons,  in  their  famous  remonstrance,  took 
care  to  justify  themselves,  as  from  the  highest  im- 
putation, from  any  intention  to  relax  the  golden 
reins  of  discipline,  as  they  called  them,  or  to 
grant  any  toleration:  And  the  enemies  of  the 
Church  were  so  fair  from  the  beginning,  as  not  to 
lay  claim  to  liberty  of  conscience,  which  they 
called  a  toleration  for  soul  murder.  They  openly 
challenged  the  superiority,  and  even  menaced 
the  established  Churrh  with  that  persecution  which 
they  afterwards  exercised  against  her  with  such 

severity."t 

"  That  Laud's  severity  was  not  extreme,  ap- 
pears from  this  fact,  that  he  caused  the  acts  or  re- 
cords of  the  high  commission  court  to  be  searched, 
and  found  that  there  had  been  fewer  suspensions, 
deprivations,  and  other  punishments,  by  three, 
during  the  seven  years  of  his  time,  than  in  any 

•  Hume's  History  of  England,  vol.  v.  p.  172.        f  Ibid.  vol.  vl.  p.  79. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  471 

seven  years  of  his  predecessor  Abbot;  who  was 
notwithstanding  in  great  esteem  with  the  House 
of  Commons.  Troubles  and  Trials  of  Laud,  p. 
163.  But  Abbot  was  little  attached  to  the  court, 
and  was  also  a  Puritan  in  doctrine,  and  bore  a 
mortal  hatred  to  the  Papists."* 

It  is  impossible  to  peruse  the  history  of  those 
times  without  perceiving,  at  every  step,  the  ac- 
curacy of  these  remarks  of  Hume.  The  sectaries 
affected  no  concealment  of  their  sentiments  on  the 
subject  of  toleration,  or  of  the  purpose  which  they 
intended  to  accomplish.  See  the  plain  style  which 
they  employed  in  admonitions  solemnly  addressed 
to  the  government. 

"  That  the  State  did  not  show  itself  upright, 
allege  the  parliament  what  it  will ;  that  all  honest 
men  should  find  lack  of  equity,  and  all  good  con- 
sciences condemn  that  court;  that  it  should  be 
easier  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, than  for  such  a  parliament:  that  there  is 
no  other  thing  to  be  looked  for  than  some  speedy 
vengeance  to  light  upon  the  whole  land,  let  the 
politic  Machiavels  of  England  provide  as  well  as 
they  can,  though  God  do  his  worst:  and  finally, 
if  they  of  that  assembly  would  not  follow  the  ad- 
vice of  the  first  admonition,  they  would  infallibly 
be  their  own  carvers  in  it,  the  Church  being 
bound  to  keep  God's  order,  and  nothing  to  be 
called  God's  order  but  the  present  platform."t 

Is  this  the  language  of  men  claiming  hberty  of 

*  Hume's  History  »f  Enghnd,  vol  y\.  p  483.       f  Ac!mon.  p.  61. 


472  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLEr's        LET.  XI. 

conscience,  or  pleading  for  the  sacred  rights  of 
toleration?  Is  it  not  perfectly  evident  that  they 
had  no  idea  of  toleration ;  and  that  their  object  was 
to  overthrow  the  establishment  for  the  purpose  of 
planting  their  own  system  upon  its  ruins? 

See  further  the  solemn  protestation  which  they 
required  of  every  person  whom  they  admitted 
into  their  congregations.  "  Being  thoroughly  per- 
suaded in  my  conscience,  by  the  working  and  by 
the  word  of  the  Almighty,  that  these  relics  of 
Antichrist  be  abominable  before  the  Lord  our 
God;  and  also,  for  that  by  the  power,  mercy, 
strength,  and  goodness  of  the  Lord  our  God  only, 
I  am  escaped  from  the  filthiness  and  pollution  of 
these  detestable  traditions,  through  the  knowledge 
of  our  Lord  and  vSaviour  Jesus  Christ ;  and  last  of 
all,  inasmuch  as,  by  the  w^orking  also  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  his  Holy  Spirit,  I  have  joined  in  prayer, 
and  hearing  God^s  word,  with  those  that  have  not 
yielded  to  this  idolatrous  trashy  notwithstanding 
the  danger  of  not  coming  to  my  parish  Church, 
&c. — Moreover,  I  have  now  joined  myself  to  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  wherein  I  have  yielded  myself 
subject  to  the  discipline  of  God's  word,  as  I  pro- 
iXiised  at  my  baptism,  which  if  I  should  again 
mistake,  and  join  myself  with  their  traditions,  I 
should  forsake  the  union  wherein  I  am  knit  to  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  join  myself  to  the  discipline 
of  Antichrist.  For  in  the  Church  of  the  tradi- 
tioners  there  is  no  other  discipline  than  that  which 
hath  been  maintained  by  the  antichristian  Pope 
of  Rome,  whereby  the  Church  of  God  hath  al- 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  473 

ways  been  afflicted,  and  is  until  this  day.  For 
the  which  cause  I  refuse  them.  God  give  us  grace 
still  to  strive  in  suffering  under  the  cross,  that  the 
blessed  word  of  our  God  may  only  rule,  and  have 
the  highest  place,  to  cast  down  strong  holds,  to 
destroy  or  overthrow  policy  or  imaginations,  and 
every  high  thing  that  is  exalted  against  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  to  bring  into  captivity  or 
subjection  every  thought  to  the  obedience  of 
Christ  "* 

Thus  were  the  Puritans  bound  together  by  a 
solemn  oath,  to  abjure,  hate,  and  destroy  both 
the  government  and  worship  of  the  Church.  It 
was,  indeed,  their  uniform  language  that  "  the 
constitution  of  the  hierarchy  was  too  bad  to  be 
mended;  that  the  very  pillars  of  it  were  rotten; 
that  the  structure  ought  to  be  raised  anew,  and 
that  they  were  resolved  to  lay  a  new  foundation 
though  it  were  at  the  hazard  of  all  that  was  dear 
to  them  in  the  world."t 

I  repeat  it,  then,  the  question  between  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Puritans,  was  not 
whether  the  latter  should  be  tolerated — toleration 
at  this  time  was  not  at  all  understood — but  whe- 
ther the  whole  fabric  of  the  Church  should  be 
overthrown,  and  the  Calvinian  system,  both  of 
doctrine  and  discipline,  forced  upon  the  people  of 
England  by  the  civil  power.  In  addition  to  the 
public  documents  which  have  been  cited,  let  me 

•  See  Collier's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  544. 

t  See  Wilson's  History  and  Antiquities  of  Dissenting  Church<»«:. 

60 


474  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XIV 

direct  your  attention,  for  a  few  moments,  to  the 
language  used  by  the  leading  men  among  the  Pu- 
ritans in  their  sermons  ant!  addresses.     "  If  mi- 
nisters," says  the  zealous  Presbyterian,  Edwards, 
^'  will  witness  for  the  truth  and  against  errors,  they 
must  set  themselves  against  toleration,  as  the  prin- 
cipal inlet  to  all  error  and  heresy ;  for  if  toleration 
be  granted,  all  preaching  will  not  keep  them  out. 
If  a  toleration  be  granted,  the  devil  will  be  too  hard 
for  UB,  though  we  preach  ever  so  much  against  them. 
A  toleration  will  undo  all.     It  will  bring  in  scep- 
ticism  in  doctrine  and  looseness  of  life,  and  af- 
terwards all  atheism.     O  let  ministers,  therefore, 
oppose  all  toleration,  as  that  by  which  the  devil 
would  at  once  lay  a  foundation  for  his  kingdom  to 
all  generations:  witness  against  it  in  all  places: 
possess  the  magistrate  ivith  the  evil  of  it,  yea,  and 
the  people  too,  showing  them  how  if  a  toleration 
were   granted,  they  could  never  have  peace   any 
more  in  their  famihes,  or  ever  have  any  command 
of  wives,  children,  servants Toleration  is  de- 
structive to  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  salvation 
of  souls ;  therefore,  whoever  should  be  for  a  to- 
leration, ministers  ought  to  be  against  it.     If  the 
parliament,  city,  yea,  all  the  people,  were  for  a 

toleration  of  all  sects yet  ministers  ought  to 

present  their  reasons  against  it,  preach  and  cry 
out  of  the  evil  of  it,  never  consent  to  it,  but  pro- 
test against  it,  and  withstand  it  by  all  lawful 
means  within  their  power,  venturing  the  loss  of 
liberties,  estates,  lives,  and  all  in  that  cause,  and 


LET.  XI,  LIFE  OF  DR.  RODGERS.  475 

inflame  us  with  zeal  against  a  toleration,  the  great 
Diana  of  the  sectaries  !  !  !"*' 

Listen  to  the  hmguage  of  Calamy  before  the 
House  of  Commons ! — "  If  you  do  not  labour, 
according  to  your  duty  and  power,  to  suppress 
the  errors  and  heresies  that  are  spread  in  the  king- 
dom, all  these  errors  are  your  errorsi,  and  these 
heresies  are  your  heresies."  Hear  Baxter  ex- 
claiming— "  Oh  Heavens  !  We  intended  not  to  dig 
liown  the  banks,  or  to  pull  up  the  hedge  and  lay 
all  waste  and  common,  when  we  desired  the  pre- 
lates' tyranny  might   cease My  judgment   I 

have  always  freely  made  known;  I  abhor  unlimited 
liberty  or  toleration  of  all."  Hear  again  the  whole 
body  of  London  ministers,  in  their  protest  against 
the  great  Diana  of  the  Independents,  crying  out 
— "  We  detest  and  abhor  the  much  endeavoured 
toleration.  Our  bowels  are  stirred  within  us 
when  we  call  to  mind  how  long  and  sharp  a  tra- 
vail this  kingdom  hath  been  in  for  many  years  to- 
gether, to  bring  forth  that  blessed  fruit  of  a  pure 
and  perfect  reformation;  and  now,  at  last,  after 
all  our  pangs,  and  dolours,  and  expectations,  this 
real  and  thorough  reformation  is  in  danger  of  be- 
ing strangled  in  the  birth  by  a  lawless  toleration^ 
that  strives  to  be  brought  forth  before  it."  Or, 
the  still  stronger  language  of  the  ministers  and 
elders  of  one  of  the  provincial  assemblies  of  the 
Presbyterians.  "  Toleration  would  be  the  putting 
a  sword  in  a  madman's  hand;  a  cup  of  poison 

*  Gangrxna,  parti.  K>ir>. 


476  EXAxAIINATlON  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

into  the  hands  of  a  child ;  a  letting  loose  of  mad- 
men with  firebrands,  and  appointing  a  city  of  re- 
fuge in  men's  consciences  for  the  devil  to  fly  to." 

Such  were  the  principles  of  the  Puritans. — 
What  was  their  practice  r  Did  they,  after  ob- 
taining power,  grant  toleration  to  other  denomi- 
nations ? — The  little  finger  of  Presbytery  soon 
proved  itself  to  be  heavier  than  the  very  loins  of 
Prelacy. 

Of  the  spirit  in  which  the  reformation  was  con- 
ducted in  Scotland,  under  the  auspices  of  Knox, 
a  judgment  may  be  formed  from  the  law  which 
was  enacted,  that  ^'  if  any  person  should  either 
say  mass,  or  be  present  at  it,  he  should  for  the 
first  fault  forfeit  all  his  goods,  and  undergo  such 
corporal  punishment  as  the  magistrate  should 
think  fit  to  put  upon  him  ;  the  second  fault  is  ban- 
ishment ;  and  the  third  death."* 

See  the  spirit  by  which  the  Scotch  Reformers 
continued  to  be  actuated  at  a  much  later  pe- 
riod !  One  of  them  declared  "  that  as  the  wrath 
of  God  was  never  diverted  from  his  people,  until 
the  seven  sons  of  Saul  were  hanged  up  before  the 
Lord  in  Gibeon ;  so  the  wrath  of  God  would 
never  depart  from  that  kingdom,  till  the  twice 
seven  prelates,  (the  number  of  the  Scotch  sees) 
were  hanged  up  before  the  Lord  there."  Another 
did  nut  scruple  to  assert  that  "  the  bloodiest  and 
sharpest  war,  was  rather  to  be  endured  than  the 
least  error  in  doctrine  and  discipline."! 

•   kJcc  Hume'.-.  lIist.ory  of  Engla.id,  vol.  iv,  p.  175. 

t  See  Churciiman's  MemonaJ,  General  Introduction,  p.  104- 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DH.  RODfiERS.  477 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  Puritans,  >vhcn  they 
had  partly  risen  into  power,  was  to  institute  an 
impeachment  in  the  House  of  Commons,  against 
Dr.  Richard  Montague,  for  writing  a  treatise  against 
the  Calvinistic  opinions,  and  proving  that  they 
were  not  the  doctrine  of  the  CImrch  of  Endand. 
This  irregular  and  violent  act  afforded  a  very  clear 
prognostic  of  what  was  to  follow.  Accordingly, 
no  sooner  did  the  Puritans  completely  succeed  in 
their  efforts  to  get  into  pow^r,  than  they  abolished 
Episcopacy,  plundered  the  Church,  expelled  all 
the  clergy  who  would  not  perjure  themselves  by 
taking  the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  and 
perpetrated  the  most  horrible  cruelties. 

When,  therefore,  the  severities,  exercised  by 
the  Church  of  England,  are  referred  to,  we  must 
always  recollect  that  toleration  Avas  not  at  that 
time  understood  or  practised  by  any  denomi- 
nation of  Christians ;  that  the  Puritans  openly 
avowed  their  abhorrence  of  it,  and  hesitated  not 
to  declare  their  intention  of  putting  dow^n  Episco- 
pacy, for  the  purpose  of  establishing  their  own 
system  in  its  place.*     It  is  absurd,  then,  to  say, 

»  Nothing-  would  be  more  humiliating  to  our  species  than  a  Listen 
of  "Toleration."  Until  a  very  late  period  it  was  deemed  the  unques- 
tionable rig-ht  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  compel  conformity  to  his  own 
religious  system,  both  of  discipline  and  doctrine.  Kings  were  in  the 
habit  of  regarding  all  departure  from  their  prescriptions,  in  this  parti- 
cular, as  not  less  offensive  than  even  questioning  tlieir  title,  or  rebel- 
ling against  llieir  authority.  The  most  profound  philosophers  consi- 
dered religious  conformity  as  so  essential  to  the  purposes  of  society  that 
governments  were  bound  to  enforce  it  by  the  severest  penalties.  Upon 
this  very  principle  the  great  Lord  Bacon  held  that  no  toleration  could. 


478  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's         LET.  XI. 

the  Church  should  have  tolerated  the  Puritans. 
The  truth  is,  they  woukl  not  tolerate  the  Church. 

with  safety,  be  given  to  sectaries;*  and,  at  a  much  later  period,  we 
find  tlie  President  Montesquieu  maintaining  that  the  civil  magistrate 
ought  to  repress  the  frst  attempts  towards  a  departure  from  the  esta- 
blished religion,  and  grant  toleration  only  to  such  sects  as  had  already 
become  numerous  and  powcrful.f  Even  Mr.  Hume  uses  the  following 
hesitating  language — "  It  is  very  questionable  whether  persecution  can, 
in  any  cause,  be  justified.*'?  When  we  consider  all  this,  and  recollect, 
at  the  same  time,  that  a  persecution  unto  death  of  Papists  was  strenu- 
ously urged  by  the  Puritans,  and  that  they  almost  disdained  to  conceal 
their  intention  of  demolishing  the  cstablislied  Church,  for  the  purpose 
of  planting  the  arbitrary  system  of  discipline  which  Calvin  had  intro- 
duced into  Geneva  upon  its  ruins,  have  we  not  reason  to  admire  the 
moderation  of  tlie  Church  of  England  ?  It  is  very  certain  that  she  has 
always  been  the  mildest  and  most  tolerant  in  her  spirit  of  any  Church 
in  Christendom.  Let  me  refer  you,  on  this  subject,  to  the  language 
of  the  Editors  of  the  Christian  Observer — men  upon  whom  you  and 
your  friends  have  been  in  the  habit  of  bestowing  much  praise,  and 
who  certainly  discover,  on  all  occasions,  a  spirit  of  great  impartiality 
towards  their  dissenting  brethren. 

*'  There  is  no  historical  truth,  we  believe,  more  clear,  no  fact 
more  incontrovertible,  than  that  the  real  design  of  the  Puritans  was 
not  the  general  grant  of  religious  liberty,  but  the  establishment  of 
their  own  peculiar  platform :  and  if  we  might  be  allowed  an  apparent 
paradox,  though  with  a  far  greater  approach  to  truth  than  any  doc- 
trine suggested  by  Mr.  Brook  can  boast,  the  established  Church 
of  England,  particularly  during  the  first  portions  of  its  reign,  was  the 
real  stickler  and  advocate  for  religious  liberty  against  the  close  spirit, 
jealous  designs,  and  unattainable  discipline  of  the  Puritan  school. 

"  When  we  speak  of  religious  liberty,  we  must  be  understood,  in- 
deed,  to  mean  something  rather  different  from  that  term  in  its  modern 
use :  for  we  believe  it  in  this  sense  to  have  been  wholly  unknown  in  the 
period  of  which  we  are  now  speaking." 

*'  Religious  liberty,  be  it  understood  by  our  readers,  meant  in  those 
days,  if  it  had  any  meaning  at  all,  the  most  liberal  and  comprehensive 
Church  establishment.  The  question,  during  the  whole  period  to  which 
wc  allude,  was  not,  whether  there  should  be  any  establishment  at  all ; 
but  what  that  establishment  should  be.    It  was  no  part  of  the  contro- 

•  Sec  his  cssfiy  De  Unitate  Ecclesiec. 

j  Sec  Spirit  of  La^s,  book  xxv,  chap.  x.  4  Vol.  vi.  p.  -iSi. 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  or  DR.  RODGERR.  47i) 

If  she  acted  with  unwairrmtuble  severity  towards 
them,   it  was  in  defondiiii!;  hniself  ai^ainst   their 


versy,  whether  the  civil  power  should  be  exercised  or  not  In  the  main* 
tenancc  of  religion  ;  and  when  even  the  Puritans  began  to  refuse  its 
headship,  which  was  not  from  the  beginning,  it  was  still  to  be  em- 
ployed as  a  servant  for  the  support  and  advancement  of  the  Church." 

*'  Botli  parties  were  fully  agreed  in  the  main,  that  some  establisli- 
ment  was  necessary;  that  the  alliance  between  the  Church  and  the 
State  was  a  benefit  by  no  means  to  be  trifled  with  or  quitted  by  the 
former;  that  the  State  had  full  authority  and  power  not  only  to  impose 
rites  and  ceremonies,  but  to  enact  a  wholr  body,  both  of  doctrine  and 
discipline,  provided  it  were  according  to  tbe  word  of  Cod,  and  fully  to 
establish  it  by  law  as  the  uniform  religion  of  the  realm  ;  that  obedienco 
to  these  enactments  ought  by  no  means  to  be  optional,  but  absolutely 
compulsory. 

"  So  far  were  the  Puritan  Reformers  from  seeking  a  general  rer 
laxation  of  penal  statutes  in  cases  of  conscience,  that  we  should  be  at  n 
loss  to  point  out  the  time  when  even  the  infamous  and  detestable  wril 
de  heretico  cumburendo*  was  made  a  subject  of  complaint,  or  in  any  dc- 
g-ree  animadverted  upon,  by  the  disciples  of  Geneva.  Let  their  illus- 
trious master,  Calvin,  himself  explain  the  reason  and  pursue  the  tale. 

**  To  us,  we  must  confess,  as  we  have  hinted  before,  the  real  and 
substantial  difference,  the  point  at  issue  between  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  the  Puritan  party,  appears  to  hare  been  the  degree  of  strict- 
ness in  conduct,  and  largeness  in  sacrifice  absolutely  to  be  required 
in  the  true  reformed  profession  of  religion.  I'lic  established  Church 
required  less — the  Puritan  Reformers  required  more.  In  the  violent 
disruption  from  Popery,  Episcopacy  was  content  to  bleed  a  little — 
Presbyterianism  was  ambitious  of  bleeding  mucli.  The  submission  to 
a  few  easy  and  indifferent  ceremonies  was,  as  Mr.  IJrook  oJaserves,  all 
that  was  requisite  to  qualify  a  Church  of  England  minister  for  his 
office  (in  addition  to  the  doctrinal  subscriptions  which  both  required 
alike);  but  the  Geneva  school  demanded  the  establishment  of  t?.g 
godly  discipline.** 

"  After  all,  does  it  appear,  that  the  established  Churcli  ever  pro- 
ceeded much  beyond  those  measures  of  severity  which  at  tltat  time 
appeared  to  be  necessary  fur  the  maintenance  of  h-^r  honour,  and  eveii 
of  her  life?  She  was  most  evidently  *  set  in  the  midst  of  many  and 
great  dangers.*  She  plainly  saw  what  even  the  most  peaceable  non- 
conformity tended  to,  as  well  as  what  the  more  stubborn  pro'^'cted. 

*  It  was  rfpralcd,  Ar.  D.  Ifirr,  1.v  r.|,ai1c3  TT.^  PprllaTncnf. 


480  EXAMINATION  OF  1)K.  MILLEr's         LET.  XI. 

assaults,  made  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  crush- 
ing her  by  force. 

I  misiht  iro  on  to  describe  the  conduct  of  the 


On  one  side,  she  saw  the  dupes,  on  the  other  the  ringleaders,  of  a 
most  determined  confederacy  against  the  whole  frame  and  texture  of 
!ier  government. 

**  Under  these  convictions,  what  did  tlicy  do  ?  Ke -kindle  the  fires 
of  Smitlifield,  or  rc-set  the  instruments  of  torture  in  the  inquisition  ? 
Did  IJonner  and  Gardner  revive  in  the  persons  of  Whitgift,  Aylmer, 
or  even  Laud  ?  No !  they  in  the  main  contented  tliemselves  with 
what  every  establishment  claims  the  privilege  of  doing.  They  sus- 
pended and  deprived  disobedient  ministers :  they  took  means  for 
ascertaining  their  practices  and  opinions,  particularly  in  respect  to 
those  ceremonies  which  were  the  point  in  dispute  ;  and  they  animad- 
verted the  most  severely  upon  the  neglect  of  these,  because  these  hap- 
pened to  be  the  very  touchstone  of  the  Churchman's  attachment  to  the 
establishment  which  fed  him.  So  far  they  did  what  was  perfectly  justi- 
fiable on  every  principle.  They  set  out  well.  And  if  they  were  after- 
wards betrayed  Into  violence,  and  enforced  some  enactments  for  the 
discouragement  of  Puritanism,  which  a  man  might  have  warrantably 
declined,  and  peaceably  awaited  his  punishment  for  so  doing,  (we  may 
particularly  allude  to  the  Act  of  Charles  I.  for  reading  the  Book  of 
Sunday  Sports),  it  was  partly  owing  to  the  wretched  temper  of  the 
t  imes  on  all  sides,  and  partly  to  the  abundant  provocations  given  to  the 
prelacy  at  large,  by  the  most  unheard-of  series  of  coarse  insults,  inju- 
rious calumnies,  and  wanton  attacks,  on  their  authority  and  dignity, 
their  office  and  very  existence. 

"  It  should  never  be  forgotten,  that  the  earliest  persecutora  of  tlie 
Puritans  were,  like  themselves,  Calvinists  in  doctrine."* 

Even  Mr,  Brook,  the  professed  and  zealous  eulogist  of  the  Puritans, 
is  obliged,  in  his  history  of  them,  to  make  the  following  reluctant 
confession — "  The  Puritans  of  these  times  were  not  without  their  fail- 
ings, being  men  of  like  passions  with  their  adversaries  :  yet  while  they 
opposed  the  Episcopal  impositions  and  oppressions,  if  they  had  accom- 
plished their  wishes,  there  is  cause  to  fear  that  they  ivoidd  have  impotcd 
their  own  discipline.  Their  notions  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  were 
confused,  and  their  principles  and  behaviour  sometimes  rigid.'*  ^rook-'c 
Lix-et  of  the  Puritantf  vol.  i.  p.  59. 


•  See  Review  of  TJrook's  Lives  e.f  the  Puritans  in  Christian  Observer,  fpr 

.''in.-.  'RJ- 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  or  DR.  RODOER3.  4Sft 

separatists  from  the  Church  of  England  after  their 
arrival  on  this  continent.  It  is  well  known  that, 
both  by  their  writings  and  their  acts,  they  showed 
themselves  lamentably  ignorant  of  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  religious  toleration.  How  easy  would  it 
be  to  present  a  long  and  disgusting  account  of 
the  cruelties  which  they  practised  toward  the  so- 
ciety of  Quakers !  Many  of  these  unfortunate  peo- 
ple w^ere  publicly  whipped;  others  were  branded; 
others  had  their  ears  cut  off.  Great  numbers  were 
confined  in  loathsome  prisons ;  some  were  trans- 
ported ; — a  few  were  put  to  death.  Nor  did  the 
persecution  stop  until  King  Charles  II.  sent  a 
peremptory  order  for  the  purpose  to  all  the  go- 
vernors of  New-England. 

I  assure  you,  Sir,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  relating 
these  facts.  But  when  attempts  are  made  to  ex- 
hibit the  Church  of  England,  and  her  daughter, 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country, 
in  an  odious  point  of  light ;  what  remains  but  to 
place  the  subject  fairly  before  the  reader?  Dr. 
Holmes,  in  his  "  American  Annals,"  offers,  as  aa 
excuse  for  the  cruelties  inflicted  upon  the  Quakers 
in  New-England,  "  the  prevalent  opinion,  among 
all  sects  of  Christians  at  that  day,  that  toleration 
is  sinful."  And  this,  indeed,  is  the  true  palliation. 
Is  it  not,  then,  most  unjust  and  ungenerous,  to 
dwell  upon  the  severities  exercised  by  the  Church 
of  England  in  Europe  or  this  country;  while 
keeping  out  of  sight  the  intolerant  principles  openly 
avowed  and  acted  upon  by  her  adversaries,  as 
well  as  the  universally  received  maxims  of  the 

61 


482  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  MILLER's        LET.  XF. 

age  ? — I  repeat  it,  Sir,  the  Church  of  England 
has  ever  been  the  most  mild  and  tolerant  Church 
of  Christendom.  An  impartial  inquiry  will  lead 
us  to  this  conclusion ;  direct  it  to  what  period  you 
please. 

But  it  is  time  to  forget  the  cruelties  of  former 
days;  except  so  far  as  the  recollection  of  them 
mav  serve  to  humble  us,  and  to  lead  us  to  bless 
God  for  the  superior  light  and  the  improved  spirit 
of  the  present  period.     This  is,    comparatively, 
an  age   of  Catholicism.     Prejudice   is  declining: 
sectarian  asperity   is   wearing  off;   and  a  bright 
prospect  of  religious  unity  is  beginning  to  dawn 
upon  us.     It  is  a  prospect  full  of  consolation  to 
the  followers  of  the  blessed  Jesus.     What  would 
we  not  cheerfully  undergo  to  restore  peace  and 
unity  to  his  mystical  body  ?    There  is  no  sacrifice 
which  we  are  not  ready  to  make  for  securing  so 
great  and  glorious  an  object,  except  that  of  yield- 
ing an  important  point  of  faith,  or  jeopardizing 
those  institutions  which  our  Lord  has  established 
as  essential  ingredients  of  his   Church,     Indeed, 
if  the  world  is  ever  to  behold  the  blessed  specta- 
cle of  a  return  of  Christians  to  one  fellowship,  it 
can  only  be  upon  primitive  principles,  and  in  the 
bosom  of  an  Apostolic  communion.    Recollecting 
that  the  Church  and  the  Faith  have  been  united 
by  Jesus  Christ,  we  shall  always  esteem  it  a  sa- 
cred duty  to  bear  our  testimony  against  every  sys- 
tem that  would  put  them  asunder.     We  conceive 
it  to  be  particularly  incumbent  upon  us,  at  the 
present  period,  to  adhere  with  augmented  zeal  to 


LET.  XI.  LIFE  OF  DK.  RODGERS.  483 

that  divinely  inslitiited  ministry  without  which 
there  can  be  no  Christian  Church  ;*  not  re- 
proaching our  fellow  Christians  who  depart  from 
us  on  this  point,  but  desiring  to  contend  for  what 
we  esteem  important  truth  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness; and  oflering  to  God  the  feiTent  prayer  that 
Christians  may  be  induced  more  and  more  to  ex- 
amine into  the  constitution  of  that  Church  which 
the  Redeemer  sanctifies  with  his  spirit,  and  which 
he  purchased  with  his  blood  ;t  and  thus  be  led 
back  to  the  order,  not  less  than  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Jimes; — so  that  "  keeping  the  unity  of 
the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,"  they  may  be- 
come, truly,  "  one  fold  under  one  shepherd." 

In  the  spirit,  I  am  willing  to  hope,  of  this  prayer, 
I  would  now  subscribe  myself,  with  the  sincerest 
wishes  for  your  temporal  and  eternal  felicity. 
Your  obedient  humble  servant 

THOMAS  Y.  HOW. 

*  **  Neither  the  light  nor  heat  of  the  sun,  nor  meat  and  drink  are 
ao  necessary  to  nourish  and  sustain  this  present  life,  as  the  office  of 
the  Apostles  and  Pastors  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  Church."  Cal- 
vi7i*s  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  iii.  sect.  2.  "  Her  ministry  enters  into 
lier  very  being-.  Had  the  ministry  ever  been  destroyed,  the  Church 
would  have  been  destroyed  too."     ChristiaTi's  Magazifie,  vol.  i.  p.  219. 

f  "  Out  of  which  (the  visible  Church)  there  is  no  ordinary  possibi- 
lity of  salvation."     Presbyterimi  Corifession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  sect.  2. 

"  Out  of  the  visible  Church,  and  so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of 
promise."     JPresbyterian  Larger  Catechism,  ans^ver  to  question  166. 

**  All  the  ordinances  are  given  to  it  (the  visible  Church)  ;  all  tlte 
•>romises  arc  made  to  it."     f'hi.'jf ion's  Magazine,  vol  i.p.  156. 


NOTE 

REFERRED  TO  AT  PAGE  6X 

Persons  who  make  tlie  distinction  between  the  esse  and  the  bene  esst 
of  the  Church,  defend  it,  I  believe,  solely  upon  the  principle  of  nc. 
cessity.  They  admit  that  the  Apostles,  acting  under  the  commission, 
and  in  conformity  to  the  will  of  Christ,  established  the  three  orders  of 
Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  and  gave  to  the  first  of  these 
orders  tlie  power  of  conveying  the  ministerial  office  by  ordination. 
They  admit,  with  the  single  exception  of  cases  of  necessity,  that 
Episcopal  ordination  alone  is  valid.  But  necessity,  it  would  seem, 
is  not  so  much  a  rule  to  help  us  to  ascertain  what  the  law  is,  as  a  cir- 
cumstance to  excuse  our  departure  fr»m  the  law.  It  can  never  make 
that  valid  which  in  itself  is  void.  The  supposition  is  that  God  has 
given  the  power  of  ordaining  to  Bishops,  and  that  he  has  not  given  it 
to  Presbyters.  Then  ordination  by  Bishops  clothes  the  person  or- 
dained  with  divine  authority ;  ordination  by  Presbyters  does  not.  The 
authority  of  God  can  be  derived  only  from  himself,  and  it  can  be  de- 
rived from  him  only  in  the  way  which  he  has  appointed  for  bestowing 
it.  But  in  the  case  before  us,  the  instituted  mode  is  admitted  to  be 
by  imposition  of  Episcopal  hands.  Now,  if  it  be  declared  in  Scrip- 
ture, either  in  express  terms,  or  by  clear  implication,  that  where  or- 
dination by  Bishops  cannot  possibly  be  had.  Presbyters  may  ordain ; 
ordination  by  Presbyters,  under  such  circumstances  of  necessity,  would 
be  as  regular  and  valid  as  ordination  by  Bishops  confessedly  is  in  all 
cases.  Presbyters  would  then  be  commissioned  by  God  to  ordain  in  a 
specific  case— the  case  of  necessity.  But,  as  far  as  the  information  of 
the  writer  extends,  defence  of  Presbyterial  ordination  in  this  way 
has  never  been  attempted.  If  it  had  been  the  intention  of  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church  that  Presbyters  should,  in  the  case  supposed, 
exercise  the  ordaining  power,  it  is  to  be  jfresumed  that  such  inten- 
tion would,  either  expressly  or  impliedly,  have  been  declared  in  Scrip- 
ture. The  position,  then,  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  or- 
dination, in  the  circumstances  supposed,  is  to  be  made  out  solely  by  ab- 
stract reasoning,  grounded  on  the  necessity  of  the  case.  But  reasoning 
of  this  kind,  it  is  conceived,  goes  not  to  the  point  of  proving  the  validity 
of  Presbyterial  ordination,  but  to  that  of  excusing  a  departure  from  the 
livin*'  plan,  and  to  the  lawful  indulgence  of  a  humble  hope  that  God, 


486  NOTE. 

under  the  urgency  of  the  case,  will  accept  mhiistratlons  in  tLemselves 
void,  and  make  tliem  channels  of  his  grace. 

It  need  scarcely  be  observed  that  this  argument  of  necessity  is  just 
as  strong  for  ordination  by  Deacons,  or  by  Laymen,  as  for  ordination 
by  Presbyters ;  since  Presbyters,  Deacons,  and  Laymen,  in  the  article 
of  ordination,  stand  precisely  upon  the  same  ground  in  Scripture.  The 
power  is  given  to  none  of  ihem  either  expressly  or  impliedly ; — and 
the  general  principle  of  necessity  would  as  much  justify  the  exercise 
of  the  power  by  one  as  by  another. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  that  the  plea  of  necessity  cannot  possibly 
be  urged  for  Presbyterial  ordination  at  the  present  day  in  any  part  of 
the  Christian  world.  Of  course,  the  distinction  taken  between  the 
bene  esse  and  the  esse  of  the  Church,  will  not  apply  to  Presbyterial  so- 
cieties now ;  inasmuch  as  Episcopal  ordination  is,  and  has  long  been 
perfectly  within  their  reach. 

The  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  true,  no  where  says,  in  so  many  -words, 
that  Episcopal  imposition  of  hands  is  necessary  to  outvv^ard  ordination ; 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  that  the  visible  Church  cannot  exist 
without  Episcopacy.  She  has  not  thought  it  necessary  or  proper  for- 
mally to  make  such  a  declaration  ;  but  that  this  is  the  fair  and  inevit- 
able conclusion  from  her  standards,  would  seem  scarcely  to  admit 
of  a  reasonable  doubt.  For  example — it  is  her  doctrine  that  the  vi- 
sible Church  cannot  exist  without  a  ministry,  and  that  the  ministry 
cannot  exist  without  a  regular  external  ordination.  She  declares  that 
Almighty  God,  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  has  appointed  the  orders  of  Bi- 
shops, Priests,  and  Hpacons ;  and  has  given  the  power  of  ordination 
to  the  order  of  Bishops.  In  other  words,  she  declares  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation to  be  the  divinely  instituted  method  of  conveying  the  ministe- 
rial office : — And,  accordingly,  on  this  ground  of  the  divine  institil-^ 
tion  of  Episcopal  ordination,  as  the  method  of  conveying  the  ministe- 
rial office,  she  expressly  provides  that  no  person,  without  Episcopal 
consecration  or  ordination,  shall  be  permitted  to  officiate  as  a  minister 
of  Christ  within  her  limits.  Thus  we  are  fairly,  and  irresistibly 
brought  to  the  conclusion  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  visible  Church. — Xo  Church  without  a  ministry — No  mi- 
nistry without  external  ordination — the  divinely  instituted  method  of 
ordination  is  by  Episcopal  imposition  of  hands. 

Without  Episcopal  imposition  of  hands,  then,  there  is  no  Church. 
Or,  in  the  language  of  Christian  Antiquity — **  Ecclesia  est  in  Epis- 
copo — the  outward  being  of  a  Church  consists  in  the  having  of  a  Bi- 
shop."    Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity^  vol.  iii.  p.  125. 

It  has  been  shown,  in  the  same  way,  that  Presbyterial  standards 
make  ordination  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  essen- 
lial  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  conduct  of  Archbishop  Bancroft,   when  the  Episcopacy  was 


couteyed  by  the  Church  of  England  to  that  of  Scotland,  has  been  cited 
to  show  the  extreme  care  of  the  former  Churcli  to  avoid  brinj^ing  the 
validity  of  the  ministry  in  theforei.^n  Reformed  Churches  into  question. 
Different  accounts  are  g-iven  of  the  lang-uape  and  conduct  of  Ban- 
croft on  this  occasion.  Bisliop  Andrews  urped  that  the  persons  pre- 
sented for  consecration  as  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  should 
first  be  ordained  Priests,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  never  yet  re- 
ceived Episcopal  ordination.  Archbishop  Bancroft,  Spotswood  tells 
us,  replied,  "  that  wliere  Bishops  could  not  be  had,  orders  given  by 
Presbyters  must  be  reckoned  lawful ;  that  unless  this  was  granted, 
the  calling  and  character  of  the  ministry  in  most  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  might  be  questioned."  According  to  Heylin,  however,  Ban- 
croft acted  upon  the  principle  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  pass  through 
the  intermediate  offices  of  Deacon  and  Presbyter,  but  that  a  person 
may  be  made  Bishop  by  a  single  consecration.  Of  this  there  are 
some  examples  in  ecclesiastical  history.  Indeed,  the  practice  of  pass- 
ing through  the  orders  of  Deacon  and  Presbyter  before  entering  upon 
the  office  of  Bishop,  would  seem  to  have  arisen,  not  from  any  requisi- 
tion of  Scripture,  but  simply  from  considerations  of  general  prudence. 
The  intent  was,  that  persons  should  not  be  advanced  to  the  important 
office  of  Bishop  until  they  had  been  well  tried  in  inferior  stations. 
Under  peculiar  circumstances,  however,  the  rule  was  dispensed  with. 
Accordingly,  Ambrose  was  made  Bishop  of  Milan,  Nectarius  of  Con- 
stantinople, Eucherius  of  Lyons,  without  passing  through  the  prepa- 
ratory stages  of  Deacon  and  Priest.  Indeed,  departure  from  the  ge- 
neral rule,  in  extraordinary  cases,  was  expressly  permitted  by  the 
Apostolical  canons. 

It  is  most  true  that  the  Church  of  England  exercised,  in  reference 
to  the  foreign  Reformed  Churches,  great  caution  and  delicacy;  avoid- 
ing all  explicit  declaration  of  the  necessity  of  Episcopacy  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Christian  Church ;  contenting  herself  with  asserting  itj 
divine  institution,  and  with  buffering  none  but  clergymen  Episcopal!/ 
ordained  to  officiate  within  her  pale.  The  primitive  Christians,  it  has 
been  seen,  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  practise  a  similar  reserve. 
"  Ecclesia  est  m  Episcopo''  was  their  avowed  maxim.  But  the  ChurcIi. 
of  England  was  very  peculiarly  situated.  In  the  admiration  expressed 
of  her  forbearance,  in  the  particular  under  consideration,  the  write? 
of  this  does  not  hesitate,  therefore,  cordially  to  unite.  But  it  is 
very  much  to  be  regretted  that  divines  of  the  Church  of  Eno-. 
land,  although  zealous  supporters  of  the  divine  institution  of  Episco 
pacy,  should  have  gone  so  far  as  to  admit  the  validity  of  Presbvterial 
ordination.  It  is  true,  they  confine  the  admission  to  cases  of  necessit; . 
StUl  this  admission  has  furnished  a  weapon  against  which  it  is  not. 
easy  to  defend  the  established  doctrine  or  practice  of  the  Church;  aud 
i't  may  b^  ^uestianed  whether  the  conce^sioits  made  by  divines  9f  the 


.im  NOTK. 

Churcli  of  Eng-Iaiid,  irt  consequence  of  the  peculiar  situstlioft  in  which 
this  Church  was  for  some  time  placed,  have  not  had  the  effect  of  con* 
firming"  many  persons  in  their  error  on  the  subject  of  Church  communion^ 
and  of  thus  injuring-  the  cause  of  Christian  unity  and  order.  The  neces- 
sity of  Episcopal  ordination,  however,  to  the  existence  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  although  not  declared,  in  so  many  ivordsy  by  the  Church 
of  Eng-land,  follows,  we  contend,  irresistibly,  from  the  language  of 
her  standards. 

It  would  not  appear,  therefore,  to  be  accurate  to  say  that  the  Church 
of  England,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  took  very  moderate 
ground  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy.  She  took  the  ground  that  the 
ministry  is  necessary  to  the  Church,  and  that  outward  ordination  is  ne- 
cessary to  the  ministry.  She  took  the  ground  that  Almighty  God,  by 
his  Holy  Spirit,  has  appointed  the  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons ;  and  has  given  to  the  highest  of  these  the  ordaining  power- 
She  prescribed  it  as  a  sacred  rule  to  herself  to  recognize  no  person  as 
a  minister  of  Christ,  who  had  not  received  Episcopal  consecration. 
It  follows,  irresistibly,  as  we  have  seen,  from  all  this,  that  Episcopal 
ordination  is  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  Church  of  England,  it  is  true,  did  not  think  it  necessary  formally 
to  draw  the  conclusion,  and  thus  throw  it,  if  I  may  so  speak,  in  the 
faces  of  the  foreign  Protestants.  This  would  have  been  treating  them 
unkindly.  But  does  the  Church  of  England  any  where  admit,  either 
expressly  or  impliedly,  that  Presbyterial  ordination  is  valid  even  in 
cases  of  necessity  ?  No.  Does  she  any  where  admit  that  Episcopacy 
is  not  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church  ?  No.  What  founda- 
tion, then,  is  there  for  saying  that  she  touk  rcrj  moderate  ground  on 
this  subject  ?  There  is  nothing  but  the  simple  circumstance  of  her 
not  formally  drawing  that  conclusion  which  results  necessarily  from 
the  plain  and  unequivocal  language  of  her  standards.  In  short,  she  did 
not  declare,  in  so  many -words — there  can  be  no  Church  -without  a  Bishop  ; 
contenting  herself  with  declaring  it  »«  substance.  It  was  surely  not 
necessary  for  her  to  say  to  her  Protestant  brethren,  you  have  laid  aside 
Episcopacy,  and,  therefore,  although  you  are  Christian  societies,  you  can- 
not, fairly  and  properly,  be  considered  as  a  Christian  Church.  If  she 
had  not  been  thus  delicately  situated  with  respect  to  the  foreign  Pro- 
testants, it  is  very  probable  that  she  would  have ybrma%  adopted  the 
primitive  language — Ecclesia  est  in  Episcopo.  But  if  the  Church  of 
England  no  wliere  says,  in  so  many  words — there  can  be  no  Church 
without  a  Bishop  ;  she  is  very  far  from  saying,  either  expressly  or  im- 
pliedly, there  may  be  a  Church  without  a  Bishop. 

In  proof  that  Episcopacy  is  not  binding  upon  Christians  in  all  times 
and  places,  and  is  not  necessary  to  the  very  being  of  the  visible  Church, 
reference  is  sometimes  had  to  the  authority  of  the  great  Hooker.  It 
may  be  well  to  inquire  into  kis  opinions  upon  this  subject  somewhat 
particularly. 


WOTB.  ^9 

*'  Let  U9  not  fear  to  be  herein  bold  and  peremptory,  that  If  any  thing 
In  tJie  Ciinrch's  g-ovemment,  surely  tlie  first  institution  of  Bishops  was 
from  heaven,  was  even  of  God ;  the  /foly  Ghost  -was  the  author  of  it.^^ 
Ecclesiastical  Folitif,  hooh  viii.  sect.  5.  *'  I  may  securely,  therefore, 
conclude,  there  are,  at  this  day,  in  the  Church  of  England,  no  other 
than  the  same  degrees  of  ecclesiastical  orders,  namely,  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons,  which  had  their  beg-inning;  from  Christ  and  his  blcanfd 
.ipostles  themselves."     Ibid,  booh  v.  sect.  78. 

Hooker,  then,  believed  most  fully  in  the  divine  institution  of  Epis- 
copacy. It  is  impossible  to  imagine  language  more  express  than  tha^. 
which  he  employs  upon  this  subject. 

But  did  Hooker  regard  Episcopacy  as  perpetually  binding  upon  tlie 
Ghurch,  so  as  to  be  unalterable  by  human  authority? 

*'  We  hold,  that  God's  clergy  are  a  state,  which  hath  been,  and  will, 
be,  as  long  as  there  is  a  Church  upon  earth,  necessarily  by  the  plain  loord 
of  God  himself;  a  state  whereunto  the  rest  of  God's  people  must  be 
subject,  as  touching  things  that  appertain  to  their  soul's  health,'* 
'*  We  hold  there  have  ever  been,  and  ever  ozight  to  be  in  such  case,  at 
leastwise,  two  sorts  of  ecclesiastical  persons,  the  one  subordinate  unto 
the  other;  as  to  the  Apostles  in  the  beginning,  and  to  the  Hishops  al- 
ways since,  we  find  plainly  both  in  Scripture,  and  in  all  ecclesiastical 
records,  other  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments  have  been."  **  A 
number  of  particularities  there  are,  which  make  for  the  more  conve- 
nient being  of  these  principal  and  perpetual  parts  in  ecclesiastical  po- 
lity, but  yet  are  not  of  such  constant  use  and  necessity  ui  God's  Church. 
Of  this  kind  are,  times  and  places  appointed  for  the  exercise  of  reli- 
gion, &c."  "  Novir,  although  that  which  the  Scripture  hath  of  things 
iin  the  former  kind  be /or  ever  permanent  i  yet,  in  the  latter,'*  &c.  Ibid-, 
hook  Hi.  sect.  11. 

Hooker,  therefore,  not  only  represented  Episcopacy  as  a  divine  insti- 
tution, but  maintained  the  general  principle  of  its  permanent  obliga- 
tion. He  admitted,  indeed,  that  it  ii  proper,  where  ordination  by  Bi- 
shops cannot  possibly  be  had,  to  resort  to  Presbyterial  ordination  rather 
than  suffer  the  worship  and  ordinances  of  the  Church  entirely  to  cease. 
And  upon  the  same  principle  he  would,  no  doubt,  have  held  it  to  be 
lawful,  where  clerical  ordination  is  entirely  inaccessible,  to  have  re- 
course to  ordination  by  laymen.     But  Hooker  goes  so  far  as  to  say 

"  When  the  exigence  of  necessity  doth  constrain  to  leave  the  usual 
ways  of  the  Church,  which  otherwise  we  would  willingly  keep :  where 
the  Church  must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath  nor  can 
have  possibly  a  Bishop  to  ordain;  in  case  of  such  necessity,  the  ordi- 
nary institution  of  God  hath  given  oftentimes,  and  may  give  place. 
And  therefore  we  are  not,  simply,  without  exception,  to  urge  a  lineal 
descent  of  power  from  the  Apostles  by  continued  succession  of  Bishops 
in  crery  ffeetnnl  ordination.    These  cases  of  inevitajjle  ne^e^^itv  alonv 


4^  NOTE. 

excepted,  none  may  ordain  but  only  Bishops.**  Eecleniastical  PnlitVy 
hooh  vii.  sect.  14.  Tims  Hooker  not  only  concedes  the  expediency  of 
resorting  to  Presbyterial  ordination  in  cases  of  necessity,  but  seems 
to  admit  Presbyterial  ordination,  under  such  circumstances,  to  be 
really  valid.  Whether  the  learned  author,  in  this,  has  not  gone  beyond 
the  strict  line  of  consistency,  I  will  not  here  presume  to  examine. 
But  it  is  perfectly  clear,  from  the  passages  which  have  been  cited,  that 
Hooker  maintained,  exi)ressly  and  unequivocally,  the  general  principles 
— that  distinct  and  Subordinate  orders  of  ministers  were  established 
by  divine  authority — tliat  the  right  of  ordination  is  exclusively  in  the 
order  of  Bishops — and  that  this  was  intended  by  its  divine  author  as  a 
permanent  mstitution,  which  man  should  have  no  power  to  change.  To 
these  general  principles  Hooker  admitted  but  a  single  exception — that 
of  inevitable  necessity ; — where  the  worship  and  ordinances  must  ceasCj 
or  Episcopal  ordination  be  dipensed  with. 

With  the  single  exception,  just  mentioned,  it  was  the  undoubted 
doctrine  of  Hooker  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  vei^y  being  of 
the  Christian  Church.  For  example,  he  held  the  ministry  to  be  es- 
bcntial  to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  and  outward  ordination  to  be 
essential  to  the  ministry.*  The  power  of  ordination  he  represented 
as  peculiar  to  the  order  of  Bishops — **  The  power  of  ordaining  both 
Deacons  and  Presbyters,  the  power  to  give  the  power  of  order  unto 
others,  this  also  hath  been  always  peculiar  iinto  Bishops.  It  hath  not 
been  heard  of  that  inferior  Presbyters  were  ever  authorized  to  ordain.** 
Thus  we  have  the  general  principles  asserted — Episcopacy  is  essential 
to  outward  ordinntinn — outward  ordination  is  essential  to  the  ministry 
the  ministry  is  essential  to  the  Church. 

But  wc  will  not  rely  simply  upon  constructive  evidence,  however 
irresistible  it  may  be.  "  Nor  was  this  order  peculiar  unto  some  few 
Churches,  but  the  whole  world  universally  became  subject  thereunto; 
insomuch  as  they  did  not  account  it  to  be  a  Church  which  was  not 
subject  unto  a  Bishop.  It  was  the  general  received  persuasion  of 
the  ancient  Christian  world,  that  Ecclesia  est  in  Episcopo,  the  outward 
being  of  a  Church  consisted  in  the  hai>iiig  of  a  Bishop.^*  Ecclesi- 
astical PolitUy  book  rii.  sect.  5. 

Hooker  would  have  been  the  last  person  to  call  in  question  a  doc- 
trine that  could  plead  the  universal  reception  and  practice  of  the  pri- 
mitive Church.  But,  apart  from  this,  he  evidently  mentions  the  opi- 
nion with  approbation ;  and,  of  course,  adopts  it  as  his  own. 

Thus  Hooker  clearly  made  Episcopacy  a  fundamental  of  the  Christian 
Church  ; — that  upon  which  she  depended  not  merely  for  her  tvcll  being, 
but  for  her  very  being. 

Vrofoundly  as  we  venerate  the  memory  of  Hooker,  we  would  tj^e 

•  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  iii.  sect.  2 


A  OIK.  t9i 

vue  iibcrt),  wn'u  gicut  uctcrencc,  to  express  tiie  upiiuou,  mat,  in  ad- 
mitting-, as  lie  seems  to  admit,  Prcsbyterial  ordination  to  be  reallit 
valid  in  cases  of  necessity,  he  lias  not  accurately  stated  the  operation 
of  the  principle  in  question;  but  lias  been  led,  by  his  amiable  feel- 
ings toward  his  brethren,  the  non-Iiplscopal  Protestants,  to  recog- 
nize tUem  as  trvie  Churches  of  Christ,  in  direct  inc<»nsi3tency  witii 
his  own  deliberate  assertion — Eccletsia  eat  in  Episcopo — tlie  outward 
BEiXG  qf  a  Church  consisted  in  the  havixg  op  a  Hibiiup.  (ireat  as 
may  be  the  authority  of  Hooker,  it  must  certainly  yield  to  the  univer- 
sal practice  and  persuasion  of  the  primitive  Church.  We  may  add, 
that  the  charitable  admission  of  Hooker  falls  short  of  its  object.  He 
expressly  confines  his  admission  of  the  validity  of  I'resbyterial  ordina* 
tion  to  cases  oHnevitable  Jiecessity.  Now,  it  may  be  questioned  wliethcr  u 
case  of  Presbytcrial  ordination  ever  occurredMial  could  fairly  be  broutj^i^i 
within  this  description.  The  Reformers  might  have  found  great  diffi- 
culty in  procuring  Episcopal  ordination;  but,  certainly,  history  v/ill 
not  warrant  us  in  saying  that  there  was  any  actual  itnpossibidty  in  the 
case.  With  proper  efforts  and  proi)er  sacrifices  the  business  might  have 
been  accomplished.  But  anxious  as  the  Reformers  were  to  procure 
Bishops,  their  zeal  was  not  of  that  thorough  kind  which  is  checked 
only  by  an  absolute  impossibility  of  attaining  its  object.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  circumstances  of  the  original  Jicformers,  tlie  plea  of 
necessity  can  be  of  no  avail  to  modern  separatists. 

Real  charity,  let  it  be  repeated,  does  not  consist  in  lovrcring  the 
standard  of  Christian  doctrine  or  order  to  avoid  hurting  the  feelings 
of  others.  Religious  truth  is  of  too  much  importance  to  be  accom- 
modated to  tl»e  feelings  of  any  set  of  men,  however  respectable  or 
excellent.  (;harity  consists  in  love  to  our  fellow  creatures;  in  a  sin- 
cere wish  and  endeavour  to  do  them  good.  It  will  dispose  us,  no 
doubt,  to  think  favourably  of  the  intentions  of  one  another ;  to  che- 
rish the  delightful  belief  that  real  piety  exists  among  all  deno- 
rainations  of  Christians ;  and  that,  wherever  it  exists,  even  fundamen- 
tal error  will  not  intercept  tlie  mercy  of  heaven.  At  the  same  time, 
;t  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  should,  in  every  respect,  em- 
brace the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ.  Sincerity  in  error  cannot  possibly 
i)e  so  acceptable  to  God  as  sincerity  in  the  truth;  otherwise  truth 
and  error  must  be  precisely  upon  a  level  in  his  view.  We  must  an- 
swer to  God  for  our  errors,  not  less  than  for  our  actions.  It  may  be 
our  own  fault  that  we  are  in  error?  and  just  in  proportion  as  error 
is  the  result  of  culpable  causes,  will  it  be  a  subject  of  condemnation. 
This,  in  any  individual  case,  can  be  known  only  to  God ;  with  whom 
all  judgment  sliould,  accordingly,  be  left.  All  we  are  at  liberty  to  do 
is  to  lay  down  such  general  rules  as  may  be  fairly  collected  from  Scrip, 
ture  ;  in  the  exercise  of  which  liberty  we  may  venture  to  say  that  re- 
sponsibility for  error  will  be  great  in  proportion  as  it  is  entertained 


i9Z  r;OTE 

under  abundant  opportunities  of  accurate  information,  and  as  the  con  • 
sequences  resulting-  from  it  are  likely  to  be  deeply  injurious  to  the 
beat  interests  oFthe  Church  of  Christ.  Even  in  such  cases,  a  merciftil 
God  will,  we  have  reason  to  trust,  make  allowance  for  the  force  of  pre- 
judice, and  of  early  impression.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  those  who 
continue  in  pernicious  error  from  apathy  that  will  not  inquire,  or  from 
pride  tliat  will  not  submit  to  the  mortification  which  a  renunciation  of 
former  opinions  is  supposed  to  involve  ?  It  is  constantly  represented 
m  Scripture  as  a  serious  and  deep  offence  to  rend  the  body  of  Christ. 
Imposition  of  sinful  terms  of  communion  seems  to  be  the  only  justifi- 
•ation  that  can  be  pleaded.  Persons,  officiating-  as  clerg-ymen,  are 
particularly  bound  to  subdue  all  prejudice  and  passion,  that  they  may 
ascertain,  by  calm  and  thorough  investig-ation,  whether  they  have  a 
valid  commission  from  Christ;  or  are  ministering-,  without  any  autho- 
rity from  him,  in  holy  things.  Inquiry,  thus  conducted,  we  do  humbly 
think,  would  produce  the  most  happy  effects  on  the  unity  of  the- 
Christian  Church. 


THE  END. 


ERRATA. 


Paga  19,  first  line  of  the  notes,  for  "  ageed"  read  agreed.  i 

83,  last  line,  for  "  50"  read  60.  ^ 

434,  line  8,  for  "  Rerformers"  read  Reformers. 
447,  lines  21,  24,  and  25,  for  "  thurst"  read  /An/r. 


00355J9S5 '*' 


937«73 

0.1 


BRITTLE  DO  NOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


